Three-time Prime Minister (PM) Nawaz Sharif raised a firestorm and enraged power circles in the country with his candid statement in an interview, that it was Pakistan based ‘non-state actors’ who carried out the 1998 terror attacks in Mumbai. As expected, the Indian press revelled in Sharif’s comments as confirmation of Pakistan’s complicity in the carnage which brought the two countries close to war. It appears that Sharif’s transformation from a military-sponsored politician to a vociferous critic of the country’s military-led ‘establishment’ is complete. His remarkable and dramatic re-invention has only taken 30 years! It is not like a seasoned and experienced politician like Sharif to wash the country’s dirty linen in public. This smacks of desperation and revenge. Perhaps he could have been more prudent and sagacious in his approach, and considered the political and personal backlash. Instead, Sharif chose to be politically incorrect by stirring the pot on the sensitive subject of country’s controversial national security and foreign policies. The Supreme Court (SC) has banned Sharif from seeking political office for life. He also faces jail time over corruption charges. Moreover, the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) faces an uphill battle to retain power in the upcoming national elections. So Sharif probably decided that he had little to lose by employing a risky ‘bull in a china shop’ strategy and go on the offensive challenging the forces arrayed against him and his party. It is not like a seasoned and experienced politician like Sharif to wash the country’s dirty linen in public. This smacks of desperation and revenge But — while his motives can be questioned — Sharif’s statements merit closer examination. His comments on the Mumbai attacks are not new. In fact, other senior Pakistani officials have acknowledged the role of locally based groups in the atrocities perpetrated in Mumbai. Some have even hinted at the involvement of retired Pakistan Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI) officials, but categorically denied any role of serving spies. There are possible links between retired ISI men and Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), though India accused serving officials of being involved as well. A splinter group of LeT headed by Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi is widely held responsible for the attacks. Much to India’s chagrin, Lakhvi is out on bail granted by an anti-terrorism court in Rawalpindi and little tangible progress has been made in the Mumbai trial in Pakistan. Sharif went on to say that Pakistan had isolated itself. He is right. The country can blame itself for its international and regional isolation. Despite significant losses in the war against extremism, many states still question Pakistan’s anti-terror credentials. Driven by insecurity and mistrust, the country’s security establishment refuses to learn from the disastrous policies of the past. Breeding Jihadi cannon-fodder, mostly in extremist Madaris (religious schools), has angered the country’s neighbours. Furthermore, Jihadis roaming the region committing violent acts invite reaction to Pakistan’s detriment. Regrettably, these counterproductive tactics and strategies can only lead the country into the abyss. Sharif also said that the existence of two or three parallel governments in the country impeded governance. He said this had to stop and there should be one constitutional government. Again, Sharif is correct. Unquestionably, the constant tug-of-war between weak elected and strong unelected institutions makes running the country difficult if not impossible. The interference of the military and the judiciary in purely political and executive matters renders elected institutions irrelevant. Besides, short-term fixes offered by unelected institutions to deep social, economic, and political problems are unlikely to work now as in the past. Sharif has frequently referred in recent public events to the need to protect the sanctity of the vote and strengthen democracy in the country. Without a doubt, Sharif political fate and that of his party should rest with voters. Free and fair elections and honouring the mandate of the people are part and parcel of democratic development. We should remember that the attempt to thwart the people’s mandate was partly responsible for the disintegration of Pakistan in 1971. To the rest of the country, the tussle between Sharif and the military-led establishment is a power struggle within the Northern Punjabi ruling elite. A non-Punjabi leader wouldn’t have dared do what Sharif has said and done and survived the consequences. While the ex-Premier’s utterances are embarrassing, he may have done the country a favour by acknowledging defective national policies. Accusing Sharif of treason is foolish as he simply re-stated well-known facts. However, Sharif does bear his share of responsibility for the country’s misfortunes during his time in office. The establishment’s current favourite, Imran Khan, poised to take over Sharif’s mantle, went overboard in his reaction to Sharif’s comments, saying that “Sharif stands exposed before the nation as he was willing to destroy Pakistan’s institutions and the future of the country to protect his wrongdoings.” In fact, Pakistan can use the opportunity presented by Sharif’s comments to exorcise its demons to chart a new course. Building a grass-roots democracy and a nation-state at peace with itself, without the burden of non-state actors, religious fundamentalism, and overbearing institutions is the way forward. The writer can be reached at shgcci@gmail.com Published in Daily Times, May 18th 2018.