The first thing first: there is no threat to the democratic process in the country from the armed forces. That the motive behind the ongoing joint session of parliament is to showcase unity of the people's representatives across the national divide against such a phantasmal threat is an argument that lacks plausible much logic. It's on record that the forces' high command has exhibited extreme patience and helped the civil rulers in confronting serious challenges by conducting it through heavy waters of poor governance; yet the underlying tone of most of the high-decibel oratory in joint sittings was that the sit-ins at the D-Chowk are part of a 'plan' to wrap up the democratic system. The hard fact is that the sit-inners have challenged the government headed by Nawaz Sharif that enjoys a comfortable majority in the parliament, and is fully empowered to handle it. Perhaps, it is the common fear of being wrapped up, based on our history that has generated the commitment of unity.
If protesters' demands had to be discussed and met outside the precincts of parliament then what was the need of a joint session of parliament, which has proved to be nothing more than a platform for lung-bursting speeches and a washing board for dirty linen. There are skeletons in all the cupboards; what Aitzaz Ahsan said about interior minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali could have been avoided had Nisar tendered an apology after the prime minister had apologised on the floor of the parliament. Good or bad, the joint session has done its duty; there is no danger to the government or the system.
The joint session may not have resolved the impasse and achieved something concrete but the sit-inners outside the parliament have. They have foment sufficient anarchy to force deferment of Chinese President Xi Jinping's first-ever visit to Pakistan. Not that none other wanted this crucial visit to be deferred; some wished overtly and quite a few others covertly. How much New Delhi must be elated the India's premier daily The Economic Times has to say: "This would be music to India's ears which had long opposed clubbing of visits to India and Pakistan every time a Chinese President or Prime Minister came to the subcontinent". However, Beijing didn't think so, President Xi was to visit Pakistan first and then go to Sri Lanka and India. The Chinese hold Pakistan in high esteem, to them Pakistan is their 'first love'; it was Pakistan that opened the door on the wider world for China by arranging its first government-to-government contact with the United States. Does the sit-inners leadership wants to test the strength of Pak-China friendship? "The force of the wind tests the strength of the grass, and a person's heart," said the then defence minister of China General Chi Haotian on his arrival in Pakistan on February 19, 1999. Together the two countries have crossed many bridges; China is Pakistan's most important strategic partner and President Xi's visit has the desired potential to take this partnership to new heights. At these trying times for Pakistan, China is ready to invest 34 billion dollars in a range of projects including power plants, rail-road networks, Karachi-Lahore Motorway and, Sinkiang-Gwadar economic corridor. There is not much in evidence to suggest that Imran Khan and Tahirul Qadri have appreciation of the damage that they have caused to national interest by creating a situation that President Xi had to put off his visit. Unless and until they offer a plausible explanation why their sit-ins have preference over the Chinese visit they would have to live with the blame of subverting the national interest. As if the cancellation of state visits by the Sri Lankan and Maldives presidents was not enough for a diplomatic setback to Pakistan's image, the latest cancellation is simply profound.
Saturday, September 6, 2014
Pakistan: Ugly aftermath of sit-ins
The first thing first: there is no threat to the democratic process in the country from the armed forces. That the motive behind the ongoing joint session of parliament is to showcase unity of the people's representatives across the national divide against such a phantasmal threat is an argument that lacks plausible much logic. It's on record that the forces' high command has exhibited extreme patience and helped the civil rulers in confronting serious challenges by conducting it through heavy waters of poor governance; yet the underlying tone of most of the high-decibel oratory in joint sittings was that the sit-ins at the D-Chowk are part of a 'plan' to wrap up the democratic system. The hard fact is that the sit-inners have challenged the government headed by Nawaz Sharif that enjoys a comfortable majority in the parliament, and is fully empowered to handle it. Perhaps, it is the common fear of being wrapped up, based on our history that has generated the commitment of unity.
If protesters' demands had to be discussed and met outside the precincts of parliament then what was the need of a joint session of parliament, which has proved to be nothing more than a platform for lung-bursting speeches and a washing board for dirty linen. There are skeletons in all the cupboards; what Aitzaz Ahsan said about interior minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali could have been avoided had Nisar tendered an apology after the prime minister had apologised on the floor of the parliament. Good or bad, the joint session has done its duty; there is no danger to the government or the system.
The joint session may not have resolved the impasse and achieved something concrete but the sit-inners outside the parliament have. They have foment sufficient anarchy to force deferment of Chinese President Xi Jinping's first-ever visit to Pakistan. Not that none other wanted this crucial visit to be deferred; some wished overtly and quite a few others covertly. How much New Delhi must be elated the India's premier daily The Economic Times has to say: "This would be music to India's ears which had long opposed clubbing of visits to India and Pakistan every time a Chinese President or Prime Minister came to the subcontinent". However, Beijing didn't think so, President Xi was to visit Pakistan first and then go to Sri Lanka and India. The Chinese hold Pakistan in high esteem, to them Pakistan is their 'first love'; it was Pakistan that opened the door on the wider world for China by arranging its first government-to-government contact with the United States. Does the sit-inners leadership wants to test the strength of Pak-China friendship? "The force of the wind tests the strength of the grass, and a person's heart," said the then defence minister of China General Chi Haotian on his arrival in Pakistan on February 19, 1999. Together the two countries have crossed many bridges; China is Pakistan's most important strategic partner and President Xi's visit has the desired potential to take this partnership to new heights. At these trying times for Pakistan, China is ready to invest 34 billion dollars in a range of projects including power plants, rail-road networks, Karachi-Lahore Motorway and, Sinkiang-Gwadar economic corridor. There is not much in evidence to suggest that Imran Khan and Tahirul Qadri have appreciation of the damage that they have caused to national interest by creating a situation that President Xi had to put off his visit. Unless and until they offer a plausible explanation why their sit-ins have preference over the Chinese visit they would have to live with the blame of subverting the national interest. As if the cancellation of state visits by the Sri Lankan and Maldives presidents was not enough for a diplomatic setback to Pakistan's image, the latest cancellation is simply profound.
No comments:
Post a Comment