Are we out of the woods yet?
In Pakistan, civil-military relations are a reflection of the power struggle impregnating the body politic of Pakistan. Harmony in these relations might have benefitted Pakistan, but dissonance in these relations have engendered more problems than all benefits of concord counted together.
On April 24, DG ISPR issued a press release conveying that the 202nd Corps Commander’s Conference led by Chief of Army Staff General Qamar Javed Bajwa was held in GHQ. The Conference discussed, amongst other things, the Panama case decision by the Supreme Court with a special reference to Joint Investigation Team (JIT) and “pledged that (the) institution through its members in JIT shall play its due role in a legal and transparent manner fulfilling confidence reposed by the Apex Court of Pakistan”. Certainly, institutions play their role through their members.
It was already known that the JIT would present its final report to the Supreme Court on July 10 and the report was presented. However, on the same day, Corps Commanders held their next Conference. The coincidence of dates disguised certain messages. On July 16, DG ISPR held a press conference and said that the army did not have any direct relation with the JIT. The point is simple: if the army had no direct relation (or connection) with the JIT, the press release of April 24 should have been amended (or retracted). The obverse side of the argument is that if the press release of April 24 was valid, the statement issued by the DG ISPR on July 16 was questionable. DG ISPR overlooked the fact that institutions play their role through their members, as earlier claimed. Reducing the role to direct or indirect is just a post-script of little value.
The hyperbole in the ISPR’s press release of April 24 can be understood in the background of the inquiry report on the DAWN leaks. On April 29, by using the twitter handle, the ISPR publicly rejected the inquiry report issued by the Prime Minister (PM) house. To keep the disagreement official, the ISPR could have written a letter to the PM house to express its reservations, but it did not opt for that. The question is this: what were the stakes of the ISPR to stay publicly relevant by snubbing the PM house? Unfortunately, in the Constitution of Pakistan, there is no provision for an institution that could function parallel to the democratic institution (or the parliament). The ISPR is just a subordinate office to the Ministry of Defence. Challenging the PM house publicly not only blemished the ISPR but it also adumbrated the conclusions of the JIT report. Similarly, in withdrawing the tweet by the ISPR on May 10, many people prognosticated the kind of conclusion of the JIT report.
There are two major problems with the JIT report. First, it speculated conclusions. Second, it jumped to conclusions. That is, the JIT report overlooked the gaps between a document (as evidence) and the conclusion it was drawing, thereby discrediting any possibility for alternative conclusions. Perhaps, the members of the JIT were not trained for excluding the possibilities for alternative conclusions. Another reason for such a practice could be that the JIT might be prepossessed with certain conclusions. That is, the JIT superimposed its conclusions on the report to validate the decision of the Supreme Court which had selected the JIT precisely. The JIT might have played its role in a “legal and transparent manner”, but the JIT has failed to do any critical analysis of the documentary evidences it collected.
One major point, which will keep on haunting the JIT, may be that the JIT came up with no evidence of corruption against the incumbent Prime Minister of Pakistan. This happened despite the fact that the institution of the army was playing its due role through its members, as claimed by April 24 press release. The JIT could have been called successful in its performance, if it had unearthed the money trail of corruption done by Nawaz Sharif. Only then could the oft-repeated conclusion “living beyond means” made by the JIT for the Sharif family have been corroborated.
The rhetoric of living beyond means opens another chapter of social understanding of issues. In Pakistan, the salaried class faces the problem of fathoming the way the business class works. One factor that keeps a member of the salaried class salaried is that they are not ready to take financial risks, which otherwise are the hallmark of the business class. The act of installing a steel factory in one country and then relocating it to some other Arab country by the Sharif family can be understood in this context. It is the risk factor that keeps on tormenting a businessman who tries to establish all links and endeavours to put in place all mechanisms to ensure the financial viability of his venture. Opening bank accounts in various countries, transferring money to evade harsh taxes, and buying property in different countries are some of the measures to secure original wealth – not to say of the profit. All members of the JIT were salaried having no experience of initiating a business venture in a foreign land with the idea of making it successful. This is where the social learning of the JIT members crept in to ruin the results of the report.
Interestingly, the JIT report implies that Pakistan has been facing the challenge of retaining money into its economic sphere. The members of the JIT might be very credible by reputation as claimed by DG ISPR, the credibility of the Sharif family is also known. JIT’s failure to find out any shred of evidence of corruption against Nawaz Sharif is a major proof of the integrity of the Sharif family. The question is this: what has prompted this family to take its money out of Pakistan and invest there? The broader question is this: why has the politico-economic atmosphere in Pakistan so vitiated to keep industrialists doing ventures out of the country? A simple answer could be found in the sense of insecurity pervading through the country: in the remote past, a kind of insecurity was created by nationalisation of industries; in the recent past, a kind of insecurity was engendered by vindictiveness of army generals such as General Pervez Musharraf who imposed martial laws. The era of nationalisation of industries is over for sure; however, the era of martial laws is still doing a last ditch effort to make its survival possible.
