The country’s tainted history of military takeovers, coupled with a bitter reality that Pakistan is yet to see a Prime Minister, who would complete his or her full term (five years) in office, is a glaring proof and prominent evidence that the country’s democratic representatives in political circles have had their fair share of troubles and consequences whenever they have tried to stand against the military might. And therefore, the political struggle of any party against its opponents relies heavily on its terms, understandings and relationship with the military establishment.
However, the notion seems to be taking a different turn this time around as Imran Khan’s ouster from power, followed by a countrywide anti-military establishment campaign run under the narrative of an alleged regime change led by the US and implemented by its alleged handlers in form of Khan’s political opponents and the military establishment, certainly has been responded to in a much different way by the power centre.
Khan’s ongoing open, blatant and direct assaults, accusations, allegations and name calling to the military establishment has, on one hand, badly damaged the institution at large, while on the other, has not been able to trigger a response normally expected and practiced by the military establishment in the past.
In the past, a slight deviation of any ruling political regime from the military or any rift of policies would trigger a military takeover or a stronger action undertaken through non-military means to oust a particular government off power.
However, in the current scene, despite Khan’s direct attacks on the military establishment and its senior most officers including the Army Chief, the establishment has opted to maintain its position of not siding with Khan or even standing in strong opposition to Khan’s anti-government and anti-establishment narrative.
The military establishment spokesperson office Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) terms it as “apolitical”.
Upon inquiring in detail about what has forced the powerful military establishment to let Imran Khan go on with his campaign and tarnishing the institution along with its heads, creating serious doubts in the hearts and minds of the people, who are now raising fingers and chanting slogans against the military establishment; the answer was precise, crisp and had broader context.
“Imran Khan is a fish which is out of the water. Now either you can kill the fish or let it die in time. If you kill Imran Khan now, he will not only get the face saving he is looking for by becoming a hero and a political victim, but also he will get the political mileage and relevance that he has been fighting for. On the other hand, if you let the fish (Imran Khan) die in time, he will not only become a victim of his own narrative as slowly but surely, that’s losing its life… he will also end up on no man’s land after it’s over”.
Withdrawal is one of the most difficult things to do. But at times, it’s the best option to take on broader and long-term results.
Imran Khan’s efforts and intensified rallies are going to “lose all of their gas by the end of November. He knows this, that’s why he is pushing hard every way. Just like the fish, that losing breath being out of water. Give it time, it’ll die itself”.
–IANS
Comments are closed.