Notwithstanding the fact that Prime Minister Imran has been a strong proponent of the concept of neutrality, taking pride in being instrumental to the introduction of neutral umpires in cricket, and has sung praises of the idea in terms of impartial behaviour or conduct of state institutions, he has come up with a new interpretation of it. Addressing a public rally in Dir, he maintained, “Humans act according to their conscience. Only animals remain neutral. Islam does not allow us to be neutral.” It is the biggest ever U-turn by him. In fact, it has been his forte in politics, which he regards as a trait of a bigger-than-life leader. This interpretation of the word neutral was given by him in the backdrop of the filing of a no-confidence motion by the opposition parties against him and the likely role of the state institutions in the obtaining situation. Most analysts are insinuating his remarks to an implied suggestion that the establishment could not remain neutral in the situation and has to side with the government to tide over the impending crisis. It is noteworthy that only a day before the public rally, DG ISPR had made it clear that Army was neutral and had no concern with the politics of the country. It is pertinent to point out that in a public rally at Mailsi a few days ago, while dilating on the Ukraine crisis and the letter written by the EU ambassador to Pakistan seeking her support for UN resolution condemning Russia for its attack on it, he emphatically declared that Pakistan was not their slave as to follow their dictates. It was not in any camp and would remain “neutral” on the issue. The foregoing glaring contradictions within the span of a few days can be interpreted in many ways. One is that he thought that as far as the internal political situation was concerned, all state institutions must support the political agenda of the ruling party; abandoning their neutral stance. And those defying his logic would be exhibiting animal-like behaviour. The second explanation could be that being neutral applied only to the conduct of foreign relations, though it would not be an act of humans as per his own understanding. I am afraid he is terribly wrong in his utterances in either sense and seems to have lost sense of proportion. Accountability cannot be conducted by compromised leaders who have an irresistible propensity to abandon their claimed ideology and universally accepted democratic norms for reaching the corridors of power. In both public rallies addressed by him, he seemed to have taken leave from his senses. While heaping scorn on the opposition leaders and using derogatory epithets for them, he sounded more like the street urchins rather than the chief executive of a country. He is not supposed to indulge in mimicry and foul-mouthing. Another childish behaviour on his part was when he ridiculed Bilawal for the slip of the tongue when referring to the government’s response to the situation, he said, “Kaanpain tang rahi hein.” One is really amazed at Imran’s audacity to hurl scorn on others forgetting that he himself was guilty of uttering wrong words and making uninformed claims. For example, speaking at a function in Karachi, he said, “Zardari mery Bandooq ki nashist per hey.” Had somebody then told him that “Nishist” means seat and the correct word was “shist?” Somebody has rightly said those who live in glass houses should not throw stones at others. I am personally against destabilizing a sitting government and not allowing it to complete its mandated tenure. But it is regrettable to note that the permeating situation is a sequel to the own conduct of the PTI government, more so the egoistic bent of mind of Prime Minister Imran Khan. He failed to build working relations with the opposition parties, which is essential in a democratic polity. He has been treating them as non-entity and hating to even shake hands with them, practically disenfranchising the people who voted for those parties and whose combined vote was far more than the votes obtained by PTI. He is stubborn and obstinate and lacks the flexibility of a politician. He has made relentless efforts to push the opposition to the wall, by using NAB for his much-trumpeted accountability. My contention stems from repeated remarks made by the High courts and the apex court that NAB was being used for political engineering. The myth of accountability has also been exposed by the acquittal of a number of people against whom NAB had filed corruption references. Accountability is an indispensable element in regards to good governance, particularly in a democratic setup. However, it requires the existence of a system immune to political interference intended to pursue narrow political ends of the ruling party and elite. Unfortunately, the successive governments have used this farce as a tool for political vendetta to subdue their opponents. The PTI government is not different from them. Instead of leaving the accountability of the corrupt elements to the concerned state institutions, the Prime Minister, his ministers, hired pseudo-intellectuals and carpet-baggers benefitting from the regime, have indulged in reckless media trial of the opposition leaders against whom NAB was busy in preparing and filing corruption references. I would be the last person to defend corruption as I believe in across-the-board accountability without the sitting government using it as a ploy to denigrate and condemn political opposition without their conviction from the court of law. Let me also say that accountability cannot be conducted by compromised leaders who have an irresistible propensity to abandon their claimed ideology, morality and universally accepted democratic and political norms for reaching the corridors of power. Imran Khan who announced his credentials as a revolutionary committed to reforming the corrupt system at a huge public rally in Lahore on October 31, 2011, has, unfortunately, forgotten everything that he said. Soon after he became aware of the need for “electables,” he started taking people from other parties. The party, however, did not make much impression in the 2013 elections but did gain enough seats to emerge as the single largest party in the 2018 elections. He had no choice other than to seek the support of the parties and individuals whom he had been dubbing most corrupt and anti-Pakistan, for fulfilling his dream to rule the roost. That completed his transition from a self-proclaimed revolutionary to a traditional Pakistani politician, hungry for power at any cost. Fauzia Kasuri, a founding member of the party in an article that lamented the adoption of the traditional political creed by Imran Khan remarked, “Imran has wantonly sacrificed principles at the altar of political expediency.” One does not need to say more. The writer is a former diplomat and freelance columnist.