Daily Times

The joint session of both houses of parliament concluded on Friday with adoption of a unanimous resolution condemning the use of force by Indian security forces, inviting attention of the world community to take notice of the plight of innocent Kashmiris, and calling for resolution of the Kashmir issue according to the United Nations resolutions. But did Pakistan succeed in sending the message to India that the nation stands united on the Kashmir cause? Certainly not, as during the Thursday session the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) and Pakistan Muslim Laegue-Nawaz (PML-N) parliamentarians traded barbs, reminiscent of 1990s when both the parties had accused each other of corruption, and their governments were twice sent packing by the president under Article 58-2(B) of the Constitution. What transpired in the recent joint session of parliament and the so-called leak of details of a meeting on security issues in the Prime Minister House is enough to show that the element of unity was nowhere to be seen.

PPP parliamentarians criticised the ruling PML-N for its inability to effectively carry forward the country’s foreign policy on Kashmir. Senator Aitzaz Ahsan, in his address, held PM Nawaz Sharif responsible for Pakistan’s diplomatic isolation, as the premier is also the foreign minister. “Pakistan’s isolation is Nawaz Sharif’s personal failure,” he said, adding that the prime minister would have moral authority to talk to Narendra Modi looking into his eyes only after he had cleared his family’s name from the Panama leaks issue.

PML-N Senator Mushahid Ullah Khan accused PPP Senator Aitzaz Ahsan of helping India crush the Khalistan movement by handing over the lists of Sikh activists to Indian intelligence agencies when the latter was the interior minister in the Benazir Bhutto government. PPP lawmakers chanted anti-Sharif slogans attacking the PM’s so-called friendship with Modi. This enraged the PML-N lawmakers, and Khan passed personal remarks against the PPP leadership.

India must have benefited from the rumpus in the joint sitting of parliament, where some parliamentarians raised the issue that banned organisations had been a source of ignominy to Pakistan, insinuating that the military supported them. It appears some forces are at work to create a rift between the government and the military. An unsubstantiated ‘exclusive’ news story by an analyst on national security aspects titled “Act against militants or face international isolation, civilians tell military” was published in a national daily on October 6, 2016. The very title connotes that military is responsible for isolation of Pakistan. In such crucial times, when Pakistan is confronted with India’s jingoism and warmongering, highlighting a growing rift between the military and civilian leadership is considered an unwise move. International media, especially Indian media, has given prominent space to the news story, as Pakistani lawmakers ‘confessed’ to pampering of banned organisations.

It is quite normal that all aspects of security are discussed threadbare in security-related meetings, and the issue of banned organisations must have been discussed. However, nobody is supposed to leak the proceedings of and decisions taken in such meetings. What message has been given to India by creating a scene in the joint session, and by leaking the ‘information’ to convey the impression that the elected government was wary of military’s support to Hafiz Saeed and Masood Azhar? In times of crisis when all Pakistanis should be united, an unverified story has caused immense damage to Pakistan’s image. Spokespersons of the PM, the chief minister of Punjab and the ministry of information have all denied the story, terming the differences between civil and military leaderships as factually incorrect. On Friday, even the national daily itself published the rebuttal to the story on page five: “Intelligence agencies working in line with state policy, says PM office.”

Yet, there is a perception that a member of the ruling party was behind the leak with or without the consent of the party leadership. The next day, the same national daily carried a story titled “MNAs question presence of banned outfits in country,” in which the details of debate in the National Assembly’s Committee on Foreign Affairs were given. PML-N MNA Rana Mohammad Afzal admitted that he found it difficult to explain to think tanks in France about the presence of Jamaat-ud-Dawa’s chief Hafiz Saeed in Pakistan and his role vis-à-vis Kashmir. This story appears to be a follow-up of the story published a day earlier, and lends credence to the above perception. There is no denying the fact that not only military establishment but also the elected governments have been mollycoddling militant organisations. In fact, elected governments had all along been keen to hold talks with the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP).

After taking oath, PM Sharif in his first address to the nation had made an offer for talks to militants. Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali had then said that the army completely supports the option of dialogue as the top priority to check terrorism and extremism in the country. The nation was told that the objective was to improve law and order situation so that the government could focus on the revival of economy and generating employment opportunities. The PML-N has the mandate to take policy decisions, but like previous governments it has also wasted a great deal of time in deciding military action against militants. Before May 11 elections, PM Sharif had categorically stated that he would like to hold talks with militants, and that holding negotiations with militants was the first option.

It was for past and present government’s brazen capitulation to militant brigands and obsequious appeasement of terrorists that the hierarchy had yielded so much ground, which required many sacrifices to be regained. In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, the Awami National Party had won the election in 2008 with a thumping majority in the province. It was understood that the party had the support and backing of the people. But as the ANP leadership did not keep contact with their power base, militants intruded into their constituency. The ANP government had signed agreements with the TTP in 2008 and in 2009, and Fazlullah and Sufi Muhammad used the first agreement to consolidate their position. After the second agreement, Fazlullah and Sufi Muhammad had declared that they did not accept democracy, the constitution and judicial system of Pakistan, and continued their vile acts. Hence military action was taken in Swat and Malakand.

The writer is a freelance columnist. He can be reached at mjamil1938@hotmail.com