Imran Khan’s valid and invalid points
Three APCs were held under the previous government. The first on Dec 2, 2008 was convened in the aftermath of Mumbai attacks when India threatened to take punitive action. The leaders and representatives of political parties unanimously condemned the Mumbai attacks while they firmly supported the government and the armed forces in defending Pakistan’s security. The second APC took place on May 18, 2009. Its 16-point resolution unanimously backed the government’s counter-insurgency operation in Swat and Malakand division and resolved to try to unite the nation in the face of the insurgency. The third APC was held on September 29, 2011 in the face of perceived threats of use of force against Pakistan emanating from the US. It was the biggest-ever political gathering for many years as leaders of almost all political and religious organisations both elected and unelected had been brought together to discuss the situation arising out of serious allegations levelled by the US officials against Pakistan’s armed forces and the ISI. A number of resolutions passed at the earlier APCs had remained unimplemented. The third APC therefore proposed to form a parliamentary committee to oversee the implementation of earlier resolutions. The main purpose behind the three APCs was not to formulate any national policy but to express support for the army and ISI in certain conditions peculiar to the time. As far as the principal aim behind these APCs was concerned it was fulfilled.
The objective behind the APC being convened by the PML-N though is to focus on and formulate a national security policy after getting briefs from all stakeholders. It is different from the earlier APCs, for only a handful heads of political parties with representation in the parliament are being invited. In that sense, it could be termed as a ‘closed door’ meeting. Imran Khan still maintains that he wants to get at the truth about two points. One, on the government’s, including the military’s, prevailing commitment or understanding with the US on its war on terror and drone attacks. And, two, the position of the intelligence and security organisations on the sectarian terrorism. There was a common complaint after the various military briefings to politicians that the ‘real hard facts’ presented were already known to the general public through media.
The points Imran has raised are valid. Unless the government and the army are forthright, the APC would yield precious little. That a meeting between Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, Gen Kayani and himself should precede the APC, is the second Imran demand which however is not as straightforward. Why exclude others from the meeting, particularly the leader of the opposition in NA? Khursheed Shah leads the second largest parliamentary party and can lay a genuine claim to be as responsible as any other politician in the NA.