Imran Khan will be ill-advised to continue baiting the army. There is no evidence as yet that the generals, despite the victim card they have played, are actually willing to become what they claim they are — apolitical
Former Pakiatan prime minister Imran Khan. AP
Former Pakistan prime minister and head of the Tehreek-e-Insaf party Imran Khan has locked horns with his country’s most powerful institution, the army. For the time being the army, facing an unprecedented barrage of criticism on the social media undoubtedly engineered by Khan’s supporters, is playing the victim card. It is doing so by denying that it is playing a political role at all. It is also emphasising that it is “subservient” to the government of the day and it is for the political authority to defend the army’s honour. The army has appealed to political parties not to drag it into politics. It has also stressed that it would be better if everyone left decisions to the judiciary for it is only by following judicial orders that societies prosper.
The role played by the generals in Pakistan’s ongoing political crisis is not entirely clear. The Pakistan Army is both a professional and political institution. Hence, for it to abandon its latter role would be a most important development in Pakistan’s national life. It will also impact the region, including India. Hence, it is essential to ascertain, as far as possible, if the army’s claim that it is now “apolitical” is true?
While addressing a long and well attended media briefing on 14 April, Major General Babar Iftikhar, director-general, Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR), said that Army Chief General Qamar Bajwa and Lt General Nadeem Anjum, director-general of ISI (DG, ISI) were approached by the prime minister’s office when the ‘deadlock’ was on “ki isme koi beech–bachao ki baat karen“. He also said that the options to defuse the crisis were not given by the Army but emerged in the meeting Bajwa and Anjum attended in Khan’s office. These options were that the no-confidence motion proceeded as it is, Khan resigned or that the Opposition withdrew the motion and Khan dissolving the Assemblies took the country to elections. The last was Khan’s preferred option and was conveyed by Bajwa and Anjum to the Opposition leaders who refused to withdraw the no-confidence motion.
Significantly, and in response to Babar Iftikhar’s assertion, Shireen Mazari, who served as human rights minister in Imran Khan’s cabinet, tweeted: “I am stating on record PM did not call mly (sic) for help on “breaking pol deadlock”. The mly (sic) sought meeting through Def Minister Khattak & they put forward the 3 proposals of either PM resigning or taking part in VNC or fresh elections.” VNC refers to vote of no-confidence. To support her contradiction of Babar Iftikhar’s claim Mazari tweeted further “Why wld IK give option of resigning when he already stated categorically & repeatedly he wld never resign. Makes no sense! Also IK categorically rejected VNC as foreign regime change conspiracy. So why wld he suggest these options. Absurd!”
***
Also Read
Pakistan after the fall of Imran Khan: Get ready for a fresh round of instability
What Imran Khan’s exit could mean for India-Pakistan relationship
How Imran Khan was the best thing to have happened to Pakistan — from India’s perspective
***
The burden of Iftikhar’s claims is that after this intervention the army strictly remained on the sidelines and only watched developments as they unfolded. But is this true? An indication emerged in Iftikhar’s 14 April briefing itself. Throughout the briefing Iftikhar was the epitome of calm. He only got flustered once. A journalist — referring to his assertion that on 9 April neither Bajwa nor any corps commander had gone to the prime minister’s house for meetings — asked who were the two officers who met (political leaders) in the president’s chamber in Parliament House at 8.55 (pm)? Iftikhar said “I have no idea. Aisee koi cheez nahi hai. There is no truth in this thing.” There is an inherent contradiction in Iftikhar’s short response; if he had “no idea” how could he say with certainty that there was no truth in the claim that such a meeting took place at the venue and time specified. Obviously, the contradiction speaks volumes.
One of Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Bajwa’s main tasks would be to repair the damage done to Pakistan-US ties by Imran Khan’s full anti-US campaign that his ouster was because of a US “conspiracy” executed through local collaborators. He is continuing with these charges after being thrown out of the prime minister’s office following the success of the no-confidence motion against him in the Pakistan National Assembly on 9 April. Khan had asserted that the Pakistan Army which had participated in the National Security Council (NSC) meeting on the US action against him had agreed that there was a conspiracy. At the 14 April media briefing, Iftikhar said that the military’s views were reflected in the NSC statement which did not use the word “conspiracy”. This is correct. The statement mentioned that the US had used undiplomatic language and the “communication” amounted to a “blatant interference” in Pakistan’s internal affairs.
By now it is clear that Khan’s claims are based on a conversation between the then Pakistan ambassador in Washington, Asad Majeed Khan, and Donald Lu, assistant secretary of state in the State Department. Lu had expressed great disappointment at Khan’s visit to Moscow in February. Indeed, he was there on the 24th the day Russia invaded Ukraine. The Army has clarified that it had been consulted and had no objection to Khan’s visit. It has added that no one could have thought Russia would launch an invasion when Khan was there; this embarrassed Pakistan. The US has, however, pinned the ‘blame’ on Khan and Lu did indicate somewhat inappropriately, in the context of the no-confidence vote, that if there was a change it would be better for US-Pakistan ties. Certainly, while this can be construed as interference in internal affairs it does not show a conspiracy.
Khan has contested the army’s assessment. At his public rally in Karachi on 16 April he dismissed the army’s differentiation between conspiracy and interference. He said that there was a great international conspiracy to oust him. His party is vigorously propagating that the current government is ‘imported’ and therefore unacceptable. There is no doubt that Khan will use this as the main political plank in the foreseeable future. In doing so, Khan will also be taking on the Army. The question is if the Army will change its public stance and substantive conduct in taking on Khan.
Iftikhar also announced in the media briefing that Bajwa will not accept any extension when his second term expires on 29 November this year. The appointment of the army chief is an important event in Pakistan’s national affairs. It is made by the prime minister from a list of eligible generals prepared by the army. As relations between the senior generals and Khan have broken down, they would not like him to have a role in the selection of Bajwa’s successor. This has a bearing on the country’s politics going forward. This also means that for all its protestations the army cannot really substantively take a hands-off approach to what happens in the political arena. They will be compelled to act to keep Khan at bay.
There is no doubt that Khan is charismatic and has a following which has been unhappy with the army’s approach towards him over the past many months. But for all this, the army is looked upon as Pakistan’s valiant protectors. Khan will, therefore, be ill-advised to continue with baiting the force. There is no evidence as yet that the generals, despite the victim card they have played, are actually willing to become what they claim they are — apolitical. They can be expected to ruthlessly move in if they assess that Pakistan’s — and their own — interests are in jeopardy. Then shedding inhibitions, they will brook no opposition.
The writer is a former Indian diplomat who served as India’s Ambassador to Afghanistan and Myanmar, and as secretary, Ministry of External Affairs. Views expressed are personal.