|
Syed Sheheryar Raza Zaidi Published May 26, 2022
NEVER has the English language assumed such significance in Pakistani politics as it has now. Three words lie at the heart of the current political dispensation: ‘neutrality’, ‘conspiracy’, and ‘interference’. Ironically, if the PTI and its leaders are to be believed, the era of ‘neutrality’ is what began the untimely slide that spelt the end of their regime, and the words ‘interference’ and ‘conspiracy’ were just the means to an end.
Of late, former prime minister Imran Khan and his party have trained their guns on the ‘neutrals’ and how they stood by as the regime was ousted through a ‘conspiracy’. This is part of an apparently concerted campaign of thinly veiled jibes aimed squarely at the neutrality of the knights — i.e. the military establishment. While the PTI continues to call ‘neutrality’ into question, the current government, i.e. the establishment’s former detractors, continue to hail ‘neutrality’.
All this begs the question: just what role (if any) do the knights have to play in such times of polarisation? The Constitution of Pakistan, which seems to be the flavour of the day, may hold the answer.
Chapter 2 of Part XII of the Constitution, titled ‘Armed Forces’, deals with the responsibilities of the military and its command. Article 244, read with the Third Schedule to the Constitution, provides the ‘oath’ that members of the military swear to abide by. This ‘oath’, often alluded to[جس کا حوالہ دیا جاتا ہے] in political debates around the country, and with good reason, clearly prohibits members of the armed forces from engaging in political activities. This is what ‘neutrality’ entails — staying clear of political quarrels, controversies and mudslinging, and letting the politicians create and mop up their own mess.
What does the word ‘interference’ signify? And would such ‘interference’ merit a break with neutrality?
To this end, it appears that the knights have made a conscious decision to stay away from the ‘dirt’ of politics. This attempt at ‘neutrality’ was visible when the DG ISPR, on being asked about the demand for early polls, referred the matter wholly to the ‘politicians’.
Conversely, sympathisers of the PTI argue that such ‘neutrality’, ie the need to stay out of politics, should not be seen in a vacuum. The armed forces, much like all other state institutions, have a role to play in safeguarding the interests of Pakistan. In continuing with their rhetoric [لینگوئج] of ‘conspiracy’ and ‘interference’, they refer to Article 245 of the Constitution, which primarily lays out two broad functions of the military. The first is to defend Pakistan against external aggression or threat of war, and the second is to act in aid of civil power when called upon to do so. Interestingly, both functions are to be taken up under the directions of the federal government, ie the federal cabinet including the prime minister.
They argue that the blatant [جو کھلم کھلا اور بے شرمنانہ طور پر کیا جائے] ‘interference’ in the affairs of Pakistan, as confirmed by the National Security Committee (NSC), presented an external aggression, which all state institutions including the armed forces were duty-bound to foil and act against. This ‘interference’, they believe, was to topple the regime led by Imran Khan, something which did eventually transpire [واضح ہوجانا] when Imran Khan became the first prime minister in history to be ousted through a no-confidence vote. It is this inaction of the military being ‘neutrals’ which the PTI laments [گریہ و زاری کرنا].
Interestingly enough, the NSC, under the premiership of Imran Khan and now under Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, has refused to term this ‘interference’ a ‘conspiracy’. In the context of ‘neutrality’, this has far-reaching repercussions [نتائج]. To the military establishment, the current government and a number of former Foreign Office personnel, the undiplomatic conduct of a US state official was nothing but that. There existed no deliberate scheming by foreign powers with or without the help of local handlers — ie, no ‘conspiracy’ to oust the PTI government.
What, then, does the word ‘interference’ signify? And would such ‘interference’ merit a break with neutrality? The answer may lie in the various press releases and press briefings of the Foreign Office of Pakistan over the years.
One such example cited is the statement by the Foreign Office on Feb 15, 2018, when then president of Afghanistan, Ashraf Ghani, was accused of “interference in the internal affairs of Pakistan” because of his tweets in support of the Pashtun Tahaffuz Movement. At a more global level, when the then British foreign secretary Dominic Raab spoke in parliament against the passing of a new security law for Hong Kong in June 2020, the Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson condemned the UK’s “blatant interference” in China’s internal affairs.
A bird’s-eye view of diplomatic press releases around the world makes clear that the word ‘interference’, despite appearing to be one of immense value, in effect is a word used rather sparingly to condemn ‘uncalled for’ uses of undiplomatic language, and nothing but that. This, then, perhaps explains why, despite the continued and ferocious clamour for their support, the knights have opted to remain ‘neutral’ — ie, apolitical — even if it meant that a government was sent packing, because to them this no-confidence was nothing more than legitimate political activity.
On the flip side [دوسری طرف], however, unlike the above examples, the classification of ‘interference’ was done not by the Foreign Office but by a high-powered NSC. This lends credence to the gravity of the accusations being levelled by Imran Khan, who continues to enjoy mass support. The last thing that should be done is for these accusations to be swept under the carpet. The accusations should be thoroughly investigated by a high-powered judicial commission. Anything less than that would turn these accusations into an undeniable perception, which would ultimately call into question the legitimacy of the democratic process.
All said and done, whether the PTI is true in its narrative or not, one hopes that this ‘neutrality’ continues, not just because it would honour the dictates of the Constitution, but also because it would allow the existing political system to flourish, albeit [چاہے] with hiccups and showdowns along the way.
The writer is a lawyer.
Twitter: @sheheryarzaidi
Published in Dawn, May 26th, 2022
DUAL nationality, according to Pakistani law, devolves [pass to] naturally to anyone who has been a Pakistani national and his or her progeny [children], even after they have acquired the nationality of another country. This means that theoretically, generation after generation of descendants of Pakistani immigrants can still call themselves Pakistani nationals even if they have little idea where Pakistan is.
The issue of dual nationality, of course, arises only for those Pakistanis settled in countries which allow immigrants to acquire their nationality, which means mostly countries of Europe and North America. Pakistanis living and working in the Middle East are not dual nationals but overseas Pakistanis, as most of these countries do not allow workers to acquire nationality, irrespective of the length of time they have lived in those countries. Dual nationals enjoy all the rights of citizenship, including the right to vote and run for elected office.
More importantly, very few of them ever intend to return to Pakistan. In the UK, many immigrant families are now well into their fourth or fifth generations and any prospect of their relocating to Pakistan ever is virtually out of the question. In other words, their stake in Pakistan is practically nil. In the UK, their Pakistani identity only comes to life when a Pakistani cricket team visits England, but in other European or North American countries, even this bond is not there.
There are a few questions that arise from this state of affairs. Firstly, as people who have little or no stake in Pakistan, or for that matter, knowledge of the issues facing Pakistan, on what basis are they going to decide which way to vote? On what information will their vote be based — or, more appropriately, given the overwhelming preponderance [domination, large scale presense] of the social media, on what sort of disinformation will their vote be based?
Very few dual nationals ever intend to return to Pakistan.
Secondly, Pakistani diplomatic outlets will be burdened with the almost impossible task of determining who is a Pakistani, with many turning up to claim Pakistani nationality based on flimsy documents, perhaps going back decades, that can easily be ‘duplicated’, thus opening the door to a level of corruption that will be impossible for foreign missions to handle given their very limited resources and powers in foreign countries.
So before this thing can be implemented, Pakistan has to tighten up its citizenship and nationality rules, especially for those who have taken a dual nationality, and the current absurd situation of automatic devolution of nationality from one generation to the next needs to be revisited — and not merely for the purpose of deciding whether dual nationals should be given the vote. The infinitely more important aspect is the terrorism side of things, especially after the decision of the UK government refusing to allow Shamima Begum, a UK-based dual national, to return to the UK after reportedly going to Syria to join the Islamic State effort there.
She herself was born and raised in the UK but had a notional Bangladeshi citizenship because her grandfather had come from there, although she had never in her life been to Bangladesh.
Most important of all, voting rights will only lead to greater divisions in the expatriate community [تارکینِ وطن] and greater involvement of overseas Pakistanis in the politics of Pakistan as opposed to the politics of what is now their home country and will, in all likelihood, remain the homes of their children, grandchildren and future generations. Speaking specifically of the UK where I live, even without voting rights, perhaps more people of Pakistani origin are involved in Pakistani politics than they are in British politics, thus accounting for the heavy lack of representation of the Pakistani community in mainstream British political life.
By contrast, two of the most important portfolios [اعلیٰ افسران] in the current British cabinet are occupied by people of Indian origin and it cannot be a coincidence that there are no branches of Indian political parties here in the UK.
On the other hand, the case of overseas Pakistanis living and working in the Middle East, is entirely different. The overwhelming majority of them will be returning to Pakistan at some stage and therefore one can see why they would like to have a say in Pakistani politics. Since dual nationality is not an issue in these countries, it is only right that they be given the right to vote especially in view of the huge remittances they send home.
The issue therefore needs more examination in the light of our own ground realities. Comparison with positions adapted by the UK or the US may not be entirely relevant due to the very different culture of politics in those countries.
The writer is a former editor of The News London.
Published in Dawn, May 26th, 2022
|
