In the Hebrew Book Torah, there is the story of the Prophet Balaam. Balaam was, apparently, a prophet who strayed and consequently, opposed the Jews, against God’s desire. In his view, Balaam was obeying the instructions of YHWH, the four-letter name ascribed to the God of Israel in Latin script. At some stage, fed up with Balaam’s misdeeds, God sent an angel to kill him. Balaam had a favourite donkey which he was riding, and the donkeyspotted the danger from the angel first. The donkey tried changing directions, but Balaam would not let it. The donkey then was given the power to speak and protested his master’s ill-treatment of it, because it was, in fact, trying to save its master. Am I the only one who sees the analogy and wonders whether Nawaz Sharif would want a donkey close by that could warn him of danger these days? But before joining the ranks of those baying for Sharif’s blood, let us review his words. Speaking in Urdu, he said, “Militant organisations are active today. Call them non-state actors, should we permit them to cross the border and kill 150 people? Tell me why can’t we complete their trials?” In my view, the operative words which caused the brouhaha are those in italics. Militant organisations are active the world over; so are non-state actors, some of whom are patronised by their state(s), but why use the words “call them”? “Should we permit them” can have two entirely different meanings. First, should we not have the capability of preventing them? Perhaps we should. Alternatively, it could imply that we, in fact, did ‘permit them’, without clarifying who ‘we’ is in this context, and raises the question whether we should have. The Mumbai attack occurred during an earlier government’s tenure, but for the last few years, Sharif and his cohorts have been publicly explaining why they have failed in pursuing the prosecution The latter, if true, is a damning indictment which, coming from a former PM, deserves investigation. And Sharif needs to stand up and, either prove it and tell us who is ‘we’, other than the government of the day, or suffer consequences. But, of the entire statement, the most self-damning for a former prime minister who has ruled for the past four years or so, is his final question; why the trial has not yet concluded? The Mumbai attack occurred during an earlier governments’ tenure, but for the last few years, Sharif and his cohorts have been publicly explaining why they have failed in pursuing the prosecution. Consequently, this prompts the obvious question, ‘why now?’ Fortunately, this is more easily answered. Without debating recent events, Sharif sees his political career, his families’, and maybe his party’s too, coming to an end. In his desperation, he has suddenly become conscious of the ‘power of the vote’ and has decided that if he can raise the people’s voice in his support, he might stage a comeback. To this end, he has taken to the streets and, in his pursuit of the ‘villains’ in his narrative, he has chosen the army and the judiciary. A recently published book by a German, Elias Davidsson, titled Betrayal of India has systematically destroyed the myth; and exposed the entire Mumbai attack episode as a false flag operation, deliberately orchestrated by RAW and supported by other [foreign] intelligence agencies. While we are not discussing the possibility of false flags by India here, it is pertinent to point out that Indian courts have done so over the Chittisinghpura Massacre in 2000, Mumbai attacks in 2008, the attack on the Peace Train in 2011, even Pathankot and Uri in 2016 have been questioned by Indians. But, reverting to Sharif’s statement, he and his supporters are right. Prior to Davidson’s disclosure, numerous Pakistanis who held positions of authority, including the permanent foot-in-the-mouther, Musharraf, have acknowledged the part of non-state Pakistani actors in this attack. Sharif is the first of any number to have used the operative words, ‘call them’. Why? An ‘insinuation’ is a very powerful weapon because it is used to have said what has not actually been said in clear words. Like Sharif, it leaves the insinuator with plausible deniability, and yet, it has been said clearly enough. Courts, conscious of legal limitations, might suffer in silence; not so the simple soldier; who hurts. Just like the insinuation in the Dawn Leaks that implied that the army, indifferent to the suffering of the people, was actually the one protecting terrorists among us, hurt the soldier most. Ironically, the instrument employed to deliver this blow is the same journalist who, willingly, perhaps even, gleefully, delivered the cut during Dawn Leaks and now. And, so it was, that the soldier reacted again. And, I have absolutely no doubts that Sharif knew exactly what he was doing. Perhaps this is precisely the reaction he hopes for. If people’s power is the instrument to bring Sharif back to power, the rabble must be roused. Sharif is courting arrest for his “courageous” admission, even as he disclaims having said anything more than the most innocent. Sharif, suffering violence at the hands of reluctant security personnel could, he hopes, rouse the rabble. Whether or not he succeeds in the immediate, Sharif has destroyed the coherent unity of his party on the eve of elections. Even if the masses suddenly arose to his call, Sharif’s political demise will come at his own hands; ignominiously, and very soon. The writer is a retired brigadier. He is also former vice president and founder of the Islamabad Policy Research Institute (IPRI) Published in Daily Times, May 20th 2018.