The only patriotism

The caretakers are in place. Good luck to them. They will need it. Fair elections are their responsibility. But they have limited authority and time. Moreover, fair elections are not necessarily the objective of all the participants. Even so, the caretakers have an exciting opportunity to do some real good.

More than one party has alleged ‘pre-poll’ rigging. This suggests that, whatever the electoral results, they will be challenged. Moreover, the attempt of the major parliamentary parties to eliminate essential information disclosures by candidates shows to what extent systemic corruption has become the life-blood of Pakistani politics. So, what real change can the people expect after the elections?

A “pre-election assessment report” by the Pakistan Institute of Legislative Development and Transparency (Pildat) describes the pre-election process as “unfair”. The two most important perceptions of unfairness concern: (i) the neutrality of institutions with regard to parties and candidates; and (ii) the freedom of the private-owned media from state influence and interference.

The ‘deep state’ reportedly has strong dislikes regarding some possible electoral outcomes. Impending court decisions could also have an impact. Civil unrest could further complicate the picture. Managed party-hopping of ‘electable’ politicians is on daily display. This provides the context for the coming elections.

The political system inevitably transforms ‘villains’ into ‘victims’ and ‘heroes’ into comedians. Manipulated democracy is a direct political descendant of Ayub Khan’s system of basic democracies. Accountability remains superficial, short-lived and reversible. All this might be amusing if it were not at the expense of the people and the future of Pakistan.

In this political theatre of the absurd, odd things happen. An allegedly semi-pornographic book becomes a best-seller before it is published. A book of casual conversations and shop-talk between former intelligence sleuths of India and Pakistan sets the cat among the pigeons. Naseem Zehra’s fine book, ‘From Kargil to the Coup’ – about the irresponsible, incompetent and insubordinate resort to military conflict at the expense of Pakistan’s international credibility – is praised and ignored.

I was in New Delhi when Kargil happened in 1999. The damage it has done to the Kashmir cause is incalculable. International focus shifted from the right of self-determination of the Kashmiri people according to UN Security Council resolutions to “respect for the sanctity of the LOC” according to the Simla Agreement. Kashmiri freedom fighters were transformed – to their own amazement and dismay – overnight into mountaineers. And they were effectively equated with terrorists by the major powers.

The human rights situation in Indian-occupied Kashmir was overshadowed by international concern over Pakistan’s dangerous ‘sponsoring of terrorism’. President Clinton told the then disoriented prime minister how irresponsible it was for him to allow a conflict with India within a year of conducting six nuclear tests and declaring Pakistan a nuclear weapons state.

However, Nawaz Sharif did not ‘snatch defeat from the jaws of victory’. The tide of conflict had changed decisively. He rushed to Washington with the backing, if not urging, of the then COAS who launched the operation without properly briefing him. But Nawaz lacked the moral courage to stand up to the army leadership on behalf of the foreign policy commitments he had entered into with India in Lahore. There were major risks in doing so. But a leader must have what it takes.

Instead, after being presented with the Kargil operation as a fait accompli, the prime minister – against his better judgment – went along with a disastrously unplanned military operation which had been twice rejected by previous governments. He hated it. He knew he had been deceived. He knew the national interest was emphatically harmed. But he was unable to assert any leadership.

After the disaster, he tried to dismiss the COAS while the latter was flying over Indian territory! The result was that defeated generals overthrew a bamboozled, angry and silly – but still elected – prime minister. His peace initiatives towards India, including the possibility of progress on Kashmir, were scuttled. Because of his lack of courage, Nawaz Sharif practically connived in the destruction of his own diplomacy.

Pakistan’s greatest military commander, the late Air Marshal Asghar Khan, drew a distinction between courage for the protection of personal interests and courage for the protection of national and other people’s interests. Only one of these is moral and true courage. A leader without it risks becoming a buffoon. Demanding to know why he was ousted from office may be desperate defiance; but it is not courage on behalf of something larger than self-interest.

Nevertheless, to present Nawaz Sharif’s more recent remarks about the 2008 Mumbai attacks as ‘treason’ is arrant nonsense. They may have been questionable and unwise. Much about Mumbai is still accusation and speculation. However, Elias Davidsson’s recent book, ‘The Betrayal of India’ brilliantly demonstrates with relentless detail and logic the depths to which India – and the US – sank to put Pakistan in the dock. While Elias’ book emphatically suggests that the case against Pakistan has not been made, it shows the Indian investigation to have been a complete fraud in which the US colluded against Pakistan.

This raises the question of why inquiry commission reports like those of Justice Hamoodur Rahman after the fall of Dhaka in 1971 and Justice Javed Iqbal after the US assault on Abbottabad in 2011 never see the light of day. Fortunately, Justice Javed Iqbal is today the head of NAB and may be in a position to right a major wrong done to the country. As part of ensuring national accountability, he may wish to consider ordering the immediate public release of his own inquiry commission’s report, including its note of dissent, which is part of the report.

In his address to the Izmir envoys conference in January 1972 shortly after the demise of united Pakistan, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto observed: (i) smaller countries need to be wise; they cannot afford to be overly smart or clever; (ii) whatever larger countries do, smaller countries while not forgetting essential defence, must find their best protection in adherence to international law; (iii) it is easier to break a country than build one; and (iv) confrontation may be easy but it is costly whereas making an honourable peace is the real challenge. Critics might argue that Bhutto didn’t always practise his pearls of wisdom, but pearls of wisdom they are.

Asghar Khan observed that Pakistan started four wars against India, lost them all, and learned nothing from them. However embarrassing and upsetting this may be to listen to, no one can question his patriotism, professionalism, ability and uncompromising integrity. He was, of course, a political failure, possibly because of these same qualities. But that calls into question the kind of politics that has destroyed, and is continuing to destroy, Pakistan.

Will the forthcoming elections improve our politics? The question mocks itself. There are almost no influential governing institutions or political parties in Pakistan that are true friends of the people. Elections are the political tool of the one percent, not enablers for the political participation of the rest.

There are ways out of this mess. Vast literature and inspiring examples and precedents exist. They show what can be done. They should be seriously studied. More importantly, it is time to assist, advise, reinforce or just support the many admirable young and not-so-young Pakistanis who are sacrificing so much to make a real difference in diverse fields. Integrating and up-scaling their efforts could make a transforming contribution. If Pakistan matters more than empty verbal allegiance, this is the only way forward. This is the only patriotism. This is the only context for credible elections.

The writer is a former ambassador to the US, India and China and head of UN missions in Iraq and Sudan.