What would politics be without the scaffolding of rhetoric? Barren? Mechanical? Mundane?
Politics, at its heart, is a quest for power. By commanding words that set fire to feeling and play havoc with perspective, any politician worth their salt should be able to play to an adulating gallery. After all, true power lies in the ability to enthral, with words adjoining together to cast a silver net of persuasion.
To a charismatic politician, the allure might prove too much: words are a razor-sharp katana, meant to be wielded aggressively and without quarter. For a serious political operator, however, they are a double-edged sword – to be used pragmatically and chosen with great care. Sober politicians know well that words do not rise and die like the twirling tendrils of incense. They stay, locked in the memories of journalists, civil society, and users of the internet, creating ripples, sparking reactions and carrying consequences.
Ex-Prime Minister, Imran Khan, embodies the charismatic politician. Following the footsteps of the irresistible Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, he commands a cult-like following that eagerly awaits the quiver of his lips, lapping up fact, fiction, and propaganda in equal measure. Yet, as someone who aspires to be a career politician, I hardly find him to be a sober politician. Be it the ’35 puncture’ narrative of political malfeasance that he saddled Najm Aziz Sethi with, or the allegation that the House of Sharif had attempted to bribe him with billions to disengage from his persecution of Panama, Khan has made claims that cannot see the truth eye-to-eye. At the time of writing these words, in a meeting with members of the Insaf Lawyer’s Forum, the Ex-Prime Minister has regretted sending a judicial reference against Justice Qazi Faez Isa. Wise as this recognition might appear to be, it clangs against his previous press indictments of the Justice with notes of untainted irony. The Prime Minister, an incomparable master of the art of political spin, would trackback with a little caution. Political statements, he would say, are meant to be taken with a pinch of salt anyway.
Sober politicians know well that words do not rise and die like the twirling tendrils of incense.
As difficult to dispute as this may be, one must draw a line in the sand somewhere. All disinformation, all misrepresentation, and all liberty with the truth, cannot be deemed conscionable on the anvil of nonchalance and casual indifference. Others would have written extensively about the DG ISPR’s historic briefing and the tremors it must have caused in Bani Gala. In more ways than one, a narrative found itself smashed to smithereens. For the discerning eye, that crucial distinction between fact and fiction was forced into being, even when this was done behind subtle tones of ‘apolitical’ neutrality. I am no fan of throwing around buzzwords such as ‘fifth-generation warfare’, ‘organized disinformation’ and ‘deep fake technologies’ but it seemed that the ghosts of lovers past have finally come to haunt our Captain.
Clearly, all rhetoric, however reckless, cannot be left uncontested.
In Peshawar’s barnstormer of a political gathering, the PTI juggernaut had raised questions about the new government’s aptitude as the custodians of our nuclear arsenal. The implications of this claim, notwithstanding the government’s tenuous political legitimacy, are insidious indeed, especially because of the long and fractious history of Pakistan’s nuclear program attacked by reference to links with terror and accusations of potential irresponsibility. Is it really surprising that the DG ISPR rebuked the ex-PM for his inflammatory candour? In a bid to cement his political narrative, Khan may have breached rules of diplomatic insularity before, but in more ways than one, Pakistan’s nuclear capabilities should be demarcated as the last frontier. Unfortunately, there is a thin line between speculation, critique, and the careful construction of fear and paranoia. Our Captain’s foot may have fallen on the wrong side of it.
Counter-intuitive it may appear, but there is a need to hold politicians accountable for reckless rhetoric, especially when it creates vulnerabilities for our national security. I think of Khan’s slip in mentioning America in his address to the nation, as the country whose diplomatic representative had tried to strongarm Pakistan into breaking away with Khan as its political supremo. It was a blatant breach of the specific provisions of the Official Secret Act, and if the current government intends, prosecutable. Yet, Khan’s ill-advised words in Peshawar invite careful reflection. Where are we now? What are we headed towards? How critical are words in pushing us in said direction? How can we hold our political leadership accountable?
I may be accused of being a ‘patwari’ or worse yet, a ‘traitor’, for singling out our Captain in my critique. I understand that I have indeed singled him out, even when he is not the only politician carried away by the sheer force of his flourishes. Even though others may have committed the same sin, you see, Khan’s voice is often the loudest and most clearly heard. It is high time, thus, that his more cavalier tendencies were called out. Arguments for why he is the superior political choice, whatever their merits might be, cannot be used to occlude just critique, for this is exactly how the political landscape deteriorates into cultism.
I am not a cultist and I will not stand for reckless rhetoric.
The writer identifies as a fierce feminist with a passion for politics and the law.