For Nawaz, it’s not new

• Honour and politics

It is not for the first time that Nawaz Sharif has landed himself in trouble because of his words or actions. The speeches being lately delivered by the ousted premier may sound inflammatory and mutinous to some but for the majority his words are not new. And for Nawaz Sharif, stooping low from the stature of elected representative to a rebellious bête noire for establishment and state institutions is not at all new. Cyril Almeida titled his yet another incendiary article “For Nawaz, it’s not over till it’s over”. Going by it, slight variation in the title would have portrayed the current state of affairs more aptly; in other words, “For Nawaz, it’s never over”.

The attack on the Supreme Court in 1997 is an indelible chapter in our history wherein the breaching of police barrier and vandalisation of the building by a mob of PML-N supporters led by Sardar Naseem and retired Colonel Mushtaq Kheli have been inscribed in golden words. Reason behind the attack? Hundreds and thousands of party workers were gravely influenced by the impressing words uttered by then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in contempt of the Chief Justice Sajjad Ali Shah. On 30 November, when Sharif appeared before the court for the proceedings, the mob entered the courthouse, chanted slogans against the chief of the institution and even threw and broke the portrait of Quaid-e-Azam. That day reliability and credibility of Sharif should have shattered into as many pieces as the portrait but we, as a nation, tend to turn a blind eye to what we deem forgettable.

Why this particular statement is kindling fire and receiving backlash from all the quarters is because of lack of responsibility and sanity that has been demonstrated by a former head of the government. “Militant organisations are active.” There is a difference when President Putin and President Xi say it and when former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif confesses it. “Call them non-state actors” is big enough a statement to profess your incapability to forestall external influence in running the country, let it be international pressure or non-state actors. If the existence of non-state actors and their irrepressible influence on internal and foreign policies of Pakistan is eyed as a high-priority reality by Sharif then he must also acknowledge the involvement of agents operating from across the border as that, too, puts inexorable effect on how our affairs have to be tackled.

Why this particular statement is kindling fire and receiving backlash from all the quarters is because of lack of responsibility and sanity that has been demonstrated by a former head of the government

While killing of 150 people in India at the hands of “non-state actors” operating in Pakistan is an alleged conjecture, assassination of hundreds of innocent citizens all over Pakistan through Kulbhushan Yadav and several other RAW agents is an established fact. Has India ever admitted that despite it being an inveterate reality? Then why is our former premier, who, in his own words “is not only a Pakistani but also an elected prime minister”, is so keen to take up a responsibility of something which: 1) is not proven; 2) he was himself accountable for just an year ago?

For the first time in my conscious I have seen a premier defending his political party’s leader instead of his country while standing on the floor of the National Assembly. For the first time I have witnessed a prime minister justifying his leader’s questionable wisdom instead of going by the oath he had taken in order to become a member of the house. Warranting your stance by quoting what has been previously said by your opponents is a newly evolved logic we all need some time to comprehend. A statement following the NSC meeting on Monday said: “The participants observed that it was very unfortunate that the opinion arising out of either misconceptions or grievances was being presented in disregard of concrete facts and realities. The participants unanimously rejected the allegations and condemned the fallacious assertions.” Then why did one of the participants, the prime minister himself, strongly back Sharif while addressing the house later by saying: “The person who turned Pakistan into an atomic power despite immense (international) pressure is facing treason allegations.” What does atomic power have to do with this treachery? A man can lose sanity at any stage of life.

A comparison was drawn by some intellectuals between Nawaz Sharif and Donald J. Trump some time back whereby their involvement in family businesses was discussed. One reason why Trump has remained in news for a long time was his alleged ties with Russia. That was treachery, wasn’t it? A controversy that has clung to his team throughout the election campaign and after that, it even dragged his son-in-law into the mess, just like Sharif’s who ignites debates pertinent to religion every now and then. If Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections can be held as disloyalty to the country then this surely is a clear-cut incident of perfidy and should be dealt with accordingly. As Benjamin Disraeli put is: “There is no act of treachery or meanness of which a political party is not capable; for in politics there is no honour.”