The two protagonists of the massive showdown—both have been summoned to appear before the Supreme Court over the weekend to explain the protests—have different styles. While Qadri’s tired egalitarianish oratory is being tolerated by officialdom, Imran and his followers are a more potent threat. PTI men have mastered the art of hooliganism—they have besieged Parliament, and its leaders have whipped up mass hysteria that can just tip over into violence and anarchy.
With the National Assembly, Senate, Supreme Court, the president’s house, cabinet secretariat, the foreign ministry building and the diplomatic enclave on Constitution Avenue stuck in a logjam of protests, Sharif has called out the military to protect this set of buildings of national importance.
Political analyst Nusrat Javeed, who frequently meets the PML(N) leadership, including the prime minister, appears glum when approached by Outlook, echoing the mood. “It appears that Modi has hurt Sharif with his latest U-turn, as if he was openly telling him, ‘you are too insignificant a politician and I would rather negotiate with those who are the ‘real’ powers’. Does Modi not realise that demands for Sharif’s resignation are going on in just two sectors of Islamabad? The rest of the country, including Sindh, Punjab, Balochistan, leaders from Pakhtoonkhwa, as well as the judiciary, Parliament, civil society and free media have all rallied around him?” he asks.
A Modi-Sharif meeting on the sidelines of the UN general assembly in New York now appears to be a pipe dream. The excitable Indian media’s toeing a formulaic hawkish line on television can only vitiate the atmosphere. When the Pakistani High Commissioner was asked how Pakistan would feel if Indians met with Baloch separatists, it only showed naivete and a lack of proportion. While Kashmir is an internationally recognised dispute, with wars fought over it and countless lives lost on the LoC; there is no dispute over Balochistan’s legal status.
Onward Imran Khan waves during his march to Islamabad
With Modi’s hyped US visit pending, the US State Department has termed the cancellation of talks ‘unfortunate’. “Is Modi already so weak that he’s using foreign policy issue for domestic consumption?.... There are no two countries in the world that need to talk, and talk regularly, more than these nuclear-armed South Asian neighbours....,” wrote the New York Times.
Still, India’s petulant pullout act, however galling for Sharif, is destined to be a mere sideshow in Pakistan’s climate of political convulsion.
While Imran’s basic, hitherto non-negotiable, demand—Sharif’s resignation—will certainly not be met, most Pakistanis are open to other PTI demands, including a probe into allegations of rigging in the 2013 polls by a Supreme Court commission, and the setting up of a neutral election commission with consensus. But there are no takers for Imran’s melodramatic demand to try those involved in rigging under Article 6 of Pakistan’s constitution, which covers acts of treason and carries the death penalty.
Imran next trained his guns on the media even as PTI protesters manhandled Geo TV reporters, and demanded that the channel be banned, together with the dailies Jang and The News. The PTI chief is probably oblivious of the fact that if the electronic media stopped providing it oxygen through coverage, his hifalutin dharna would just peter away.
Amidst this disheartening scenario of domestic turmoil and foreign setback, the only winner appears to be army chief Gen Raheel Sharif. A thrice elected prime minister with a two-thirds majority was made to feel so insecure that he was forced to reach out to the country’s final arbiter—the GHQ. Sharif is said to have met the army chief thrice and sent his brother, Punjab governor Shahbaz Sharif and interior minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan for four more meetings.
According to reports, while the army has assured them that there would not be a coup, it has demanded that Sharif must “share space with the army”.
Gen Sharif has thus ensured that the centre accepts his ‘real power’ on strategy, security and crucially, Pakistan’s India policy, which in recent days had been swaddled in statements of good intent. As is to be expected, the military was silent about safeguarding ‘democracy’ and the ‘constitution’.
Embroiled in a war in North Waziristan, the army reportedly refused to negotiate directly, but relented when they sensed that bloody riots in Islamabad, if it came to that, could spread to other provinces. After repeated requests from the government, Gen Sharif is said to have issued the dire warning to PTI and pta that certain buildings in the capital’s red zone constituted a ‘no go area’. That times are propitious for the army is apparent to Pakistan-watchers.
“While it still looks unlikely they will get their wish, the standoff has created perfect conditions for the army to reassert its traditional role....,” noted The Economist. “Raheel Sharif sees it as a political issue addressed in a political way,” commented an army insider in Dawn. On August 20, army spokesman Gen Asim Saleem exhorted all stakeholders to “resolve the prevailing impasse” through “patience, wisdom and sagacity”. As if on cue, Imran had relented on his tough stand and agreed to negotiate. “It does not mean that I’ll strike an underhand deal,” he clarified. A day later, he seemed to have changed his mind, pulled out of talks, and renewed a call for the PM’s resignation.
If the twin PTI-PAT protests proved one thing, it’s that nothing has changed in the civil-military balance in Pakistan. Nor, unfortunately, in India-Pakistan relations.
By Mariana Baabar in Islamabad
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
Both Imran and Qadri are power hungry and self-deluded megalomaniacs!
It is to Mian Nawaz Sharif's great credit that he did not try to cosy up to the army when it was falling out of love with the PPP government. He understood, as Imran Khan does not, that strengthening the legitimacy of a democratically elected government is more important to Pakistan's future than who gets to rule for a few years. 2. It may not be entirely correct to believe that PM Nawaz Sharif has been gravely undermined by recent events. Security related issues would in any case be finally decided in consultation with the army, so no new space has been conceded. Allowing Musharraf to spend the rest of his life in exile may be more politic than bringing him to trial for treason. 3. The fact that the army does not enter the cockpit, as it has done recently in Egypt and Thailand, is good for Pakistan. When India feels the time is opportune, it might wish to resume the stalled dialogue with PM Sharif. There is no merit in the
There is no merit in the suggestion that we should be talking to the army chief. That is against the grain of our own governance structures. Pakistan's PM is better positioned to heed and address the concerns of GHQ than anyone in India could possibly be.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT