One would hardly expect any distraction from the sweltering heat and recurring bouts of load shedding. But a recent budget speech by the prime minister in the National Assembly exactly provided exactly that type of distraction, albeit temporarily. The speech was full of surprises because of its political correctness, oratorial directness, and in receiving bipartisan accolade in the lower house. Talking about the Pakistan-US relationship, he said that nothing is more important than the sovereignty of Pakistan. Declaiming on the abstract idea of national honour and the ways and means to keep one’s head high in the comity of nations, the premier insisted that a nation must learn to have self-respect before it can expect others to respect it.

The PM contextualised his ideas about national self-respect more directly in another address in the recent days to an audience of artists. He recalled that once upon a time, despite doing a front man’s role in the US-led war against Afghanistan, Pakistan was seen as the most dangerous place in the world because of its alleged nexus with militancy and extremism. The then military dictator used the phrase “enlightened moderation” in seeking to project Pakistan’s soft image. Imran Khan insisted that it was and is a grave mistake to project Pakistan’s soft image by wearing Western clothes and speaking English language. He insisted that Pakistan’s soft image can only be projected legitimately through Pakistan’s history and self-respect. Some readers may recall that the said initiative of the government had included the setting up of a Sufi Council headed by none other than Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain.

Then the prime minister proceeded to give details of how national honour was pawned by the former dictator. Pakistani leaders, he said, sold their own citizens who later ended up in the infamous torture cells of Guantánamo Bay. Pakistan suffered a massive economic loss to the tune of $150 billion. Because Pakistan was declared the most dangerous country in the world, foreign investment in Pakatan fled to other countries such as Bangladesh. New foreign investment dried up. International cricket eluded Pakistan, and Pakistan assumed became a pariah in the sports world. Perhaps, the biggest of all embarrassments was the killing of Osama bin Laden on Pakistani soil. It was impossible to even think about investment in Pakistan in such a situation. On top of all this, Pakistan sacrificed 70,000 lives. Despite doing all these things, US never stopped demanding that Pakistan “do more” and never recognised the sacrifices Pakistan had made as a frontline state in the war on terror.

When Khan touched so many points that are close to the hearts and minds of many Pakistanis, it should come as no surprise that even the opposition benches were all praise for the PM. However, there is more to an oratorial job well done. The speech raised more questions than it provided answers. To start with, Khan ruthlessly exploded an old and deceptively crafted narrative that Pakistan has been fighting its own war against terrorism. The premiere’s speech openly expressed only what Pakistanis already knew. Pakistan had all along been fighting an American war while trying to mislead the public opinion. Successive Pakistani governments were telling their citizens that they were fighting their own war. They did not have the moral courage to say in so many words that it was actually an American war and Pakistan was being paid for providing the necessary logistic support for the US-led coalition.

The then military dictator used the phrase “enlightened moderation” in seeking to project Pakistan’s soft image. Imran Khan insisted that it was and is a grave mistake to project Pakistan’s soft image by wearing Western clothes and speaking English language.

But, even more important than exploding a thinly veneered myth is the national course correction. Keeping the Kargil debacle aside for the time being, the former military dictator bulldozed anything and everything that crossed his mind through his hand-picked parliament being run by a ragtag political coalition. His constitutional engineering included the abrogation of the Constitution twice. Going by Khan’s account, by siding with the US-led war in Afghanistan, Gen Musharraf was arguably the single most important factor in the loss of 70,000 Pakistani lives, and an economic loss of at least of $150 billion. To contextualise the economic loss incurred by the fateful decision to side with the coalition, the magnitude of the former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s London property (which was at the heart of his ouster from the office) was independently valued at 32 million pounds. The question is will Gen Musharraf be held accountable for his deeds? Will he ever be brought before Pakistani courts?

Will it ever be transparently investigated under what conditions Osama Bin Laden had ended up in Abbottabad and under what conditions he was captured and subsequently killed in May 2011? Will it be possible to quantify the extent of damage to Pakistan’s credibility as a reliable partner in a the war on terror? Will it be possible to neutralise the damage done to Pakistan’s economy because of virtual identification of Pakistan with terrorism and extremism? Most importantly, will those responsible for such massive setbacks be brought to justice in Pakistan?

Will his legacy of dislodging democratically elected governments through direct intervention or other fiats and superseding the popular will to make decisions inimical to the long-term national interests will come to an end?

By the fag end of the Afghan jihad, strict sanctions were imposed on Pakistan under the Pressler Amendment despite Pakistan’s fundamental role in Afghan jihad. The history of the withdrawal of occupying forces shows a predictable pattern of leaving much in disarray. Given the mistrust between the US and Pakistan, as shown by Biden giving a cold-shoulder to Pakistan in his climate summit and some other notable developments as noted by US Senator Lindsey Graham, can the speech play in the hands of US for a repeat of punitive actions through FATF or some other channel?

The speech may be a measure of Pakistan’s frustration with the US in important strategic spheres. The Modi government in India has unilaterally changed the status of Indian Occupied Kashmir, and despite Pakistan’s sustained efforts to mobilise the world opinion, American response has pivoted from indifference to a muted disapproval of India’s actions. More recently the United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres could go as far as urging India to stop use of shotgun pellets against children.

Pakistan may also have been flustered because of increasing Indian influence in Afghanistan. If America never stops demanding that Pakistan “do more” against terrorists, it should have, as a quid pro quo, safeguarded Pakistan’s interests by limiting the Indian role in Afghanistan. Apparently, nothing like this happened. Additionally, an increasing number of cross-border firing incidents at the Durand Line and an increasing number of the lives of Pakistan’s military personnel lost have made Pakistan extremely disappointed with America.

It is reassuring to see positive developments with regards to soul searching in Pakistan and the assertiveness with regard to its sovereignty, the long history of its leaders compromising Pakistan’s interests for their narrow interests justifies some of the cynicism in the public opinion. There are some reasons why the premiere’s speech in the National Assembly should not be taken as a paradigm shift.

Why does Pakistan’s supposed disappointment with the US vis-à-vis India not stop Pakistan from showing its eagerness to normalise relations with India? Despite the terrible human rights record of Modi government, Pakistan has made frequent overtures to India. It released the captured indian fighter pilot Abhinandan within hours. It bulldozed Jadhav-specific legislation through the National Assembly. And recently the premier has said in an interview that Pakistan would no longer need its nuclear programme if the Kashmir issue were resolved.

Pakistan may well be starting a new journey with a tilt towards China. It is hard to tell what the urgency is for Pakistan to accept Beijing’s version regarding the treatment of Uighurs in China’s Xinjiang province. Is it the beginning of a new era of US-Sino-Pak relationship or some type of a bargaining chip?

The writer is an assistant professor at the   Department of Economics at COMSATS University Islamabad,   Lahore Campus.