… .and omission
The term “Abbottabad commission” had it in it to become the gold standard adjective to describe the investigation equivalent of a death-by-committee. Anyone who knows a thing or two about how the cookie crumbles in our hapless republic knows certain quarters will be subject to no accountability at all, regardless of how serious the lapse in question is. The act of killing an investigation but maintaining the pretense of doing something about it could have been called Abottabading a problem.
Former ambassador Hussain Haqqani is set to appear in front of the five-member Abbottabad commission on the 14th of next month. Ironically, it is his own problem, due to be sent to another committee, that won’t be Abbottabaded. The non-paper that he is alleged by a shady character to have written is to be investigated thoroughly. The former ambassador is to be acquitted only after a thorough investigation where the strictest of standards will be adhered to. There is nothing at all wrong with that if that were to happen; given the grave nature of the transgression, an adherence to due process and, in the case of established guilt, a suitable retribution wouldn’t be too bad an idea. It does merit the question, though, whether the republic would ever see the day when such steadfast attention to detail and thoroughness is applied to all matters, like, now that we are on it, the Abbottabad fiasco that the committee was constituted to investigate? The presence of the world’s most wanted man in a garrison town and the subsequent operation of foreign forces deep within Pakistani territory should come higher than a non-paper on the list.
Regarding the Salala incident (see editorial above) there should be more of a possible evaluation and assessment of the situational preparedness of our forces. The same standards of professional accountability should apply to the armed forces as they do to, say, the police or the irrigation department.
