Daily Times

Pakistan’s politics is brutal. As soon the high and mighty tumble out of power, skeletons spill out of their cupboards. Former prime minister Imran Khan has also fallen prey to this political proclivity.

As soon he was voted out of power through no-confidence move, the media was ablaze with sordid stories of corruption of first lady’s friend Farah Khan/Gujjar who was blamed for minting money for transfers and postings of officers through the office of the Chief Minister Punjab.

Farah hurriedly fled away to Dubai leaving behind many questions unanswered. On the heels of this scandal came out a more repugnant issue that is hard to refute all together. The former PM bought the presents given to him from ‘Toshakhana’ (gifts depository) on subsidized price and in a more disturbing move, sold the same in the open market at exorbitantly high market price. People were taken aback over this ignoble activity from a ruler who took pains to portray himself as a clean and honest leader. His followers disbelieved the story. But the record confirms the story. A back-of-the-envelope calculation also makes it look god-awful.

The scandal was brought to light by the new Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif who revealed that Imran Khan during his tenure sold the valuable state gifts including diamond jewellery, bracelets and watches worth Rs140 million in Dubai.

“I can confirm that Imran Khan sold state gifts worth Rs140 million from the Toshakhana in Dubai,” PM Shahbaz Sharif claimed. According to media reports, Imran Khan received 58 gifts worth more than Rs140 million from the world leaders during his three-and-a-half-year stint and retained all of them either by paying a negligible amount or even without any payment. Imran Khan didn’t deny it but tried to justify it that the gifts were given to him so it was his free will to use them as he liked; “mera tohfa, meri marzi”. The law of the land, in fact, doesn’t approve this approach as any gift received from dignitaries of a foreign state must be put in the state depository or the Toshakhana. Though IK might be trying to portray it as the handy work of judgmental fuddy-duddies, he shouldn’t ignore the canary in the coal mine. Isn’t it alarming that, as per media reports, he retained some other gifts worth Rs800,200 without making any payment? It is a good move that the Islamabad High Court has directed the government to public the details of gifts presented to Imran Khan since August 2018 when he assumed office of the PM.

Going one step forward, Justice Mian Gul Hassan of IHC directed that the gifts be taken back from the individuals who took them home.

“People come and go but the Office of the Prime Minister remains at the same place. Every gift given [to the head of the state/government official] belongs to their office, not to be taken home.” He issued these directives while hearing two petitions on the matter, one by a citizen seeking implementation of the PIC order and the other by the Cabinet Division challenging that order. Ironically, the Cabinet Division maintained that the exchange of gifts between the heads of the states was a reflection of inter-state relations and revealing the details of these gifts could affect these relations. Does it mean that purchase and sale of such gifts was such an offensive act that revealing its details could jeopardize relations between the countries? Does it meant that sale of gifts given by the dignitaries of other countries is a sinister act? It can be presumed that this case is more of a matter of immorality rather than illegality.

If the gift was liked and bought back on negligible price, its resale in Dubai or other market was immoral as it amounted to disrespect to the dignitary who gave the gift. Do we sell birthday and wedding gifts in markets?

There is a hikayat of Sheikh Saadi that a king was away on a hunting tour and incidentally the staff forgot to keep salt for cooking. The minister ordered the staff to fetch some salt from the nearby village. The king directed his minister to pay for the salt to the villagers; not to bring it free of cost. The minister submitted that salt was an insignificant thing therefore the villagers wouldn’t be burdened at all to give it free to the king. The king said that if a king accepts a pinch of free salt, his soldiers would roast a thousand chicken free of cost.

The morale of the story is that the onus of upholding law and morality on the head and the representative of the country is much greater than an ordinary citizen. People follow the leader and the role model.

The problem is that like politics, generally leaders are also brutal. They show a clean face but play dirty. They resort to lies, deception and immorality with impunity, in the hope, which is often fulfilled, that the minions and myrmidons would dismiss or overlook their acts of omission and commission out of respect and awe. This amounts to treating the people as cattle and chattel.

In such perilous circumstances, we the people have to ensure to keep our eyes, minds and hearts open to dispassionately scrutinize every statement, slogan, stance and act of our leaders. Blind faith can be dangerous for us and the country.