Cracks at the top?

It is not often that real life reflects a Tom Clancy thriller, but the events of Wednesday seemed to unfold like some racy potboiler. The chronology of events goes something like this: National Security Adviser Maj-General (retd.) Mahmud Ali Durrani told CNN-IBN, an Indian based subsidiary of CNN, that Ajmal Amir Kasab was a Pakistani national. The channel also quoted ‘sources’ to say that a report claiming this had been sent to Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani and that Kasab had no links whatsoever with any state institution. Simultaneously, a private Pakistani TV channel also quoted a ‘senior government official’ as confirming Kasab’s Pakistani nationality. After some time, a foreign news agency carried a report which said that information minister Sherry Rehman in a text message also confirmed this fact, but said that no further details were given. Later, a spokesman of the Foreign Office also told the India Abroad News Service (IANS) that Kasab was a Pakistani national but that he would not be given any consular help because of the serious nature of his act. And after what appeared to be a major breakthrough in the Mumbai attacks affair, the senior government official who had first told the media that Ajmal was indeed a Pakistani was sacked by the prime minister. Some very serious differences at the highest level in Islamabad had been spectacularly laid bare within the space of a few hours.

The revelation about Kasab’s nationality should never have been allowed to become such a contentious issue. Even if it is proved beyond doubt that he is indeed a Pakistani, there is no evidence to suggest that Pakistan had any control over his actions. It should be noted here that a section of the Pakistani media had visited Faridkot in southern Punjab, the purported place of origin of Ajmal Kasab, soon after the Mumbai attacks and found that a person by the name of Ajmal Amir had indeed been a resident of the village and that his parents still lived there. The presence of men appearing to be intelligence sleuths was also reported, after which Geo TV particularly came in for some heavy criticism for ‘acting against the national interest.’ by investigating this affair. In fact, a case was even filed against it on this account. The role of a responsible media, and in fact of responsible civil society, should be to act in a manner that furthers the interests of the people and the country, ‘the national interest’ being an amorphous and vague term often used by governments and vested interests to consolidate their own hold on power. In any case, the national interest in the current climate would not be to mirror the knee-jerk antics of the Indian media, but to be introspective and seek out the truth. As the Pakistan government has repeatedly stressed, terrorism has afflicted this country more than any other and that a joint investigation with India on Mumbai is the best way ahead.

As for the national security adviser’s sudden dismissal, it obviously raises a host of questions. It would be fair to assume that someone of his rank would have access to sensitive information and would be in a position to confirm or deny precisely the kind of information that he did confirm on the evening of Jan 7. But did he or did he not clear the release of such clearly important information without consulting the chief executive? What does one make of the confirmation by the information minister or indeed by the Foreign Office? Is there a gulf between the two top offices in the country, as some analysts have said? Or does that gulf stretch even beyond the two? Whatever the truth, even if it is simply a matter of protocol and coordination, the unfortunate fact is that the affair gives ammunition to those who say that the government is not speaking with one voice on an issue of utmost national and international importance.


The no-confidence move in the AJK assembly, which removed Sardar Attique Muhammad Khan as prime minister and elected Sardar Yaqub in his place, marks another break with the past. Sardar Attique, who had in recent weeks become an increasingly controversial figure, was known as a supporter of former president Pervez Musharraf. He had also been accused of corruption. His ouster came about as a forward bloc within his own Muslim Conference joined hands with opposition parties to deliver an overwhelming vote of no confidence. In the 49-member house, 31 backed the vote and only 15 opposed it. The incoming prime minister has been warmly welcomed by Prime Minister Gilani and indeed other figures in the federal government. The buzz in Muzaffarabad is that the entire move was orchestrated by Islamabad. Sardar Atique has made similar accusations himself and warned of instability in the affairs of AJK as a result of all that has happened. Events similar to the ones we see now have taken place in the past too. Politics in AJK are frequently dominated by accusations of corruption or mismanagement. The theme of manipulation from Islamabad and accusations of horse-trading have also been heard before. The happenings are significant too in the context of Pakistan’s wider political scenario. The PML-N, despite its undisguised dislike for Musharraf and his men, has indicated it disapproves of intervention in AJK and believes this will complicate matters regarding the future of Kashmir.

We must acknowledge that the claim Pakistan makes of AJK being an independent territory is largely a piece of fiction. Even if the statement by the Muslim Conference forward bloc leaders, that the federal government in Pakistan played no part in recent events there, is accepted as true, the fact is that many of the affairs of the troubled territory are controlled by persons and groups based in Pakistan. The no-confidence move against a prime minister has for this reason sparked controversy in AJK. The role of Pakistan in the management of the territory is opposed by many Kashmiris who most of all yearn to determine their own destiny. Indeed, even outside Kashmir, there has been concern over the alleged intervention of the federal government in provincial matters. The Punjab government remains suspicious of a conspiracy against it. The prime minister of Pakistan and his team must keep as a priority on their list the need to set good, democratic precedents in all areas. The developments in Azad Kashmir are a reminder of this. Pakistan has long lacked such traditions. It badly needs them if it is to make a clean break with a past where democratic rule has frequently been disturbed by uncalled for attempts to subvert parliamentary supremacy.

__________________
Regards,
P.R.