ISPR’s political semantics

Words and sentences are packets of explosives or envelopes of goodwill

Dictionaries and lexicons provide literal and a limited range of meanings only. Thus, they may not help understand and interpret a text until and unless it is put in its proper context and situation in which it was composed and expressed. In the first part of this article, political semantics and the paradoxes lying behind the ISPR’s August 31^st Press Release were discussed. This part tries to understand the other two press releases both of which were issued on the same date.

Here is the second press release (N0. PR185/2014-ISPR), which was issued on September 1, 2014: “News being run on private channels after chief of army staff and prime minister meeting regarding prime minister resignation or his going on leave is totally baseless.”

Actually, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and Chief of the Army Staff Raheel Sharif met in the heat of a very volatile situation. The moment the meeting concluded, some three or four TV channels started telecasting the news that the COAS had asked the prime minister to resign or go on leave. It is in this context that the above PR needs to be put and interpreted. Read the PR carefully and you would especially note how badly worded it is. What it apparently means is: ‘After the meeting between COAS and PM, news regarding the PM’s resignation or his going on leave is being run on private channels, which it is totally baseless.’

First, this PR puts COAS first and PM second in its order; and second, it precludes the apprehensions or rumours it was meant to quell that the COAS had asked the PM to resign or go on leave. However, whatever it may mean, it does not mean that COAS did not ask the PM to resign or go on leave. It simply amounts to saying that two events are not related, i.e., the real fact of the meeting between PM and COAS and the imagined fact of the PM’s resignation or going on leave did not have any connection. Thus, whether it is a fact or not, regardless of that it may be surmised that the COAS may have asked the PM to resign or go on leave!

This PR puts COAS first and PM second in its order; and second, it precludes the apprehensions or rumours it was meant to quell that the COAS had asked the PM to resign or go on leave

The second Press Release (No. PR186/2014-ISPR) reads as: “(1) ISPR has categorically rejected the assertions that army and ISI were backing PTI/PAT in anyway in the current political standoff. (2) Army is an apolitical institution and has expressed its unequivocal support for democracy at numerous occasions. (3) It is unfortunate that army is dragged into such controversies. (4) Integrity and unity of the Army is its strength which it upholds with pride.”

Here the 1^st sentence of this PR, especially its first part, is what provides a clear rejection of the assertions that army and/or ISI back PTI and/or PAT. In the first place, it must be given a serious thought: why such “assertions” are made; what is that justifies these “assertions” and their overwhelming presence in the current opinion-environment; why such apprehensions raise their heads whenever there is any “revolt” against any civilian government? No doubt, there is a history of such unfortunate interventions and conspiracies, and the culprits have themselves confessed to their crimes. It is in that perspective that such assertions not only stand justified but validated also. A simple categorical rejection may not suffice to weaken or remove that long-standing impression.

What is more important is the second part of the sentence 1, which tries to qualify the “categorical rejection” of any backing of PTI/PAT! When it is said that ‘army and ISI are (“were”) not backing PTI/PAT in anyway “in the current political standoff,” as far as wording of the sentence is concerned, that means they may have been backing PTI/PAT in the past or may be backing in future. Not only is the PR badly worded, it is prone to various doubts and other meanings also which may not have been the intention of its composers. Better they composed the whole PR in the simple present tense!

In the sentence 2, the PR asserts “apolitical” nature of the institution of army. To reinforce this assertion, it reminds that on ‘numerous occasions it has expressed its unequivocal support for democracy.’ Is there any need to do so? Why is it that every time there is a “political storm” meant to weaken or topple the government, the army (and ISI), a sub-ordinate institution, has to clarify and defend its apolitical character vis-à-vis any apprehensions or allegations for its involvement? Once again the reason for such PRs lies in and is justified by Pakistan’s political history. However, in order to wipe out such assertions, apprehensions, doubts, etc, completely from the memory and mind of the nation this or such PRs would not work; what it requires for that to happen is a practically consistent and steadfast approach to devote its resources, energies and time to meet its constitutional duties and zero involvement in any political and/or civilian affairs of the state and/or government, and it must happen to be seen in that way.

After quelling its alleged backing of PTI/PAT in the first two sentences, the PR shows its regrets on the army’s dragging into such controversies and this fact as unfortunate

After quelling its alleged backing of PTI/PAT in the first two sentences, the PR shows its regrets on the army’s dragging into such controversies and this fact as unfortunate. First, it’s no controversy. Second, it’s a serious allegation that army/ISI back PTI/PAT in this political standoff or otherwise. Third, it is justified as cogent evidence from the political history of the country. Fourth, it ought to be taken as an opportunity to sit for an introspection and self-analysis by the army and its allied institutions for the sake of broader national interest. As is the case, past eclipses one’s future, so is with army and its other institutions. That is indeed unfortunate! Unfortunate for all those parties whom this PR addresses or mean to address, and the composers of the PR also!

The last sentence 4 seems to be standing on the verge of mere rhetoric. Under the circumstances, what this sentence means or may mean is neither clear nor intelligible: “Integrity and unity of the army is its strength which it upholds with pride.” The situation in which this sentence has been composed and expressed everyone knows it well; but what’s the context in which one may try to understand and/or interpret it! The one meaning which it may contain is that lest it is the “current political standoff” or the controversies the PR refers to which may be harming the army’s “Integrity” and/or “unity”; or there may be other such things or fears aiming at its “pride.” Or this sentence may be taken to mean addressing itself!

In conclusion, let me repeat: words and sentences are packets of explosives or envelopes of goodwill; it is the context and the situation which determines the nature of their destructive or constructive character. That means in a highly charged situation, as the one prevails in Islamabad today, it is political semantics that matters. Chaucer the poet said: Judge not, lest ye be judged! In the same spirit, may I remind the ISPR that it needs to be too careful to let its text mean what it never intends to mean!

Note: This is part two of a two-part article. The first part appeared in the same space last week.