POLITICAL rhetoric is entering a danger zone. With rallies and jalsas taking place every day, all leaders have ample opportunity to scale up their tempo by going after their opponents. Now the government has also ratcheted up its war of words against the opposition alliance PDM and Prime Minister Imran Khan is himself leading the charge. First in Swat and then in Hafizabad on Saturday, the prime minister addressed political rallies thinly disguised as the launch of schemes. At both venues, the prime minister resorted to incendiary speechmaking and accused the PML-N leader Nawaz Sharif of attempting to incite mutiny in the armed forces. He also said Mr Sharif was trying to bring about a coup. Coming from a prime minister, such words are not only irresponsible, they are also alarming for their possible consequences. The government has adopted an approach that can only create further fissures in an already fractured polity. It is expected of the government to work towards stabilising the system by cooling political temperatures instead of aggravating them further.
Whoever is advising the prime minister to adopt this course of action is doing him and his government no favours. In any case, the prime minister should be the last person to speak about mutiny. After all, during his dharna days it was he who advocated repeatedly that citizens should not pay their utility bills as a mark of civil disobedience. He had also said time and again that overseas Pakistanis should not send their remittances through regular banking channels and should instead use hawala and hundi to transfer money. This amounted to rebelling against the state system and was deemed irresponsible in the extreme. The prime minister should recall his own words before hurling accusations at the opposition today. When Mr Sharif had criticised the establishment as a whole, he was accused of attacking the institution, and when he criticised individuals he is now being accused of fanning mutiny. There is a clear contradiction in this logic.
There would be no need for any such controversy if the establishment kept away from politics and concentrated on its primary job. This is what PPP chairman Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari also referred to in his interview with BBC which has stirred a controversy. In fact, in some ways his position is fairly close to that of Nawaz Sharif. The difference is that he has kept his criticism of the establishment’s political role more generalised whereas Mr Sharif has named names. The basic thrust of the argument, however, remains valid. Mr Bhutto-Zardari has in many ways justified Mr Sharif’s position by saying that as a thrice-elected prime minister, he knows what he is saying and why he is saying it. However, in today’s polarised and charged atmosphere, nuances get lost in the constant noise of shouting. All leaders need to weigh their words carefully.
A bad precedent
THE recent police action against farmers in Lahore following which a protester died was appalling. While the administration hopes that such a measure would act as a deterrent, in reality it could add vigour to the farmers’ campaign.
The season of protests is well under way and as usual the law enforcers are being watched closely for evidence of the intent of those in power. How the police and other security personnel deal with demonstrators in urban areas is especially under focus, for big cities and towns are often the places where examples are created. The aim is to deter and discourage or even to crush, and it seems that the government is desperate to quell the farmers’ unrest. But in using force against the protesters, it has shown weakness instead of a resolve to address the grievances of the agricultural workers to the mutual satisfaction of both parties.
Not all the known farmer leaders are on the same platform. However, those who are here have been joined by politicians and civil society activists in condemning the use of the baton and water cannons. Also, in the face of vehement police denials, the demonstrators have angrily blamed the security force for the death of a well-known farmer activist from Vehari, demanding a case be registered against the officer who allegedly ordered the charge against the protesters and insisted that chemicals be mixed with the water aimed at the farmers. The police say the deceased died of cardiac arrest a long while after the water and baton barrage and denied allegations about the use of any chemical as a dispersing agent.
Needless to say, the ammunition on display was quite devastating even if wasn’t laced with a lethal substance. It showed intent on the part of the administration to go for the kill rather than wait and engage with, or even try and exhaust, those advancing on the seats of power with their demands. The intensity of the force used in the action was instantly linked to the presence in Lahore of a capital city police officer who has been built up by a section of the press as someone who believed in smothering trouble fast and forcefully. This is a scary precedent for protesters of all hue. It is not a wise tactic and will only deepen divisions between people and the government that must control emotions for its own good.
Intensifying hostilities
ONCE considered a ‘frozen’ conflict, the stalemate in Nagorno-Karabakh between Azerbaijan and Armenia has resumed with ferocious intensity over the past few months, with over 1,000 deaths reported so far. The crisis is centred on the region of Nagorno-Karabakh, internationally recognised as part of Azerbaijan, though the enclave is ruled by ethnic Armenians, who use the name Artsakh for the region. The area has been witnessing violence since the last days of the Soviet Union — of which both Azerbaijan and Armenia were a part — and the present conflict is in fact a continuation of past hostilities and the ‘unfinished business’ that accompanied the break-up of the USSR. While the conflict has ethnic dimensions, it also has the potential to draw in regional players and expand beyond Nagorno-Karabakh. Turkey has been supporting Azerbaijan, primarily because the latter has a majority Muslim Turkic population, while Russia is believed to harbour a soft spot for Christian Armenia, though officially Moscow is trying to play the role of peacemaker. After all, as the successor state of the USSR, Russia considers Nagorno-Karabakh as part of its ‘near abroad’, and would not want instability in its backyard. Moreover, Iran is also in a delicate position. It borders the disputed enclave while millions of Iranian citizens are ethnic Azeris, and the Islamic Republic also hosts a small number of ethnic Armenians. Even Israel has stakes in the conflict, with warm ties with Baku.
Several attempts have been made to make all sides respect a ceasefire, but each time such efforts have been shattered by heavy fighting. Perhaps Turkey and Russia — the primary foreign players in this conflict — must make greater efforts to convince their respective allies to cease hostilities and help resolve this long-standing dispute peacefully. The international community must make greater efforts to help forge a long-lasting peace deal for if the Nagorno-Karabakh crisis is left to fester, it may well spill beyond the enclave and draw regional powers into a destructive new confrontation.
