How The Opposition Negated The National Narrative?

In a democratic dispensation the ruling and opposition parties are considered as two sides of the same coin. Though placed on opposite sides, their only purpose is to promote national causes and well being of the people according to their own perceptions and beliefs. They might differ on strategies and policies to achieve this common objective and even make scathing criticism of each other, but there is always a bipartisan approach and a well defined national narrative on issues of national concern and on state interests.

However, in the land of the pure that harmony on state interests remains an elusive dream. Opposition is done for the sake of opposition and sometimes to achieve their narrow political ends, the opposition parties do not even hesitate to add spin to the agreed national narratives. The uproar by the opposition parties on the statement of Prime Minister Imran Khan in Iran regarding the use of Pakistani soil by the terrorists is a glaring testimony to this regrettable behavior. That surely was taken out of context, as also clarified by the office of the Prime Minister.

The visit of the Pakistani Prime Minister to Iran was a commendable move to recalibrate relations to their mutual advantage. In the emerging geopolitical situation and the challenges confronting the region, amity between Pakistan and Iran is of utmost importance

His visit to Iran took place in the backdrop of the killing of 14 security personnel of Pakistan at Ormara by Baloch militants who came from their bases in Iran. In the recent past, Iran has also been complaining about terrorists from Pakistani soil going into Iran to carry out terrorist activities. Pakistani security forces got four Iranian soldiers released from the custody of the terrorists on March 20, who had been kidnapped by the terrorists from the border with Iran last October, along with eight Revolutionary Guards, and handed them over to the Iranian authorities. The Revolutionary Guards were recovered only a month after their kidnapping. It was in the backdrop of the permeating situation that both Iran and Pakistan agreed to set up a joint security force to fight terrorism and guard the common border between the two countries. That indeed is a very positive outcome of the PM’s visit to Iran, and also recognition of the fact that it was imperative in view of the acts of terrorism carried on both sides by militants supported by foreign powers. It also effectively repudiated any notion of patronage of these acts by the concerned states. That aspect of the visit needed to be highlighted both by the government and the opposition.

The cross border attacks were being carried out by the non-state actors and it was in the context of that reality that the Prime Minister referred to the use of Pakistani soil by the terrorists. The opposition conveniently neglected the statement of the Prime Minister in which he said “Pakistan for the first time is dismantling militant groups in the country and this is not done due to any outside pressure. It is a decision made through consensus across the political spectrum not to allow Pakistani soil to be used by anyone against anyone.” That was an unequivocal reiteration of our national narrative against terrorism and terrorist entities. Operation against the terrorists in Swat, operation Zarb-e-Azb in North Waziristan, operation Raddul Fasad and rigorous implementation of the NAP are practical demonstrations of the national narrative. It is an irrefutable reality that Pakistan has been a victim of terrorism perpetrated by non-state actors on its soil and by those coming from across the Afghan and Iran border which necessitated the foregoing initiatives.

Pakistan abhors terrorism in all its manifestations and there is a zero tolerance for the non-state actors using its soil for terrorist acts in any neighbouring country or vice versa. It was in the context of the same policy and commitment that when India raised an accusing finger towards Pakistan over the Phulwama incident, Prime Minister Imran Khan offered cooperation in investigating the incident and also in taking action against the perpetrators of the crime, provided credible evidence of involvement of any group from Pakistan were provided. The government is still in the process of probing the contents of the dossier provided by India.

Yet another positive outcome of the Prime Minister’s interaction with the Iranian leaders was that both sides, according to the joint statement issued at the end of the visit, while condemning terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, acknowledged the great achievements of the two countries in combating terrorism and emphasized that efforts to develop regional and international cooperation in preventing and countering terrorism should be redoubled and the root causes of all types of terrorism in the region identified and addressed. It clearly indicates that Iran acknowledged Pakistan’s efforts to tackle the scourge of terrorism in the region.

It is indeed regrettable that the opposition failed to distinguish between terrorism carried out by the non-state actors and the state terrorism as practiced by India through her agents like Cdr Kulbhushan Jhadav. By mentioning the Prime Minister’s statement in a different context, the opposition actually negated the national narrative on terrorism without visualizing its implications and repercussions. That kind of irresponsible behavior is really condemnable, to say the least. Politicking on such sensitive issues needs to be avoided in the greater national interest. Granted that the opposition has the right to criticize the government policies and act as a watchdog on the government, but that right has to be exercised within the defined parameters of democratic norms and the vital national interests.

Iran and Pakistan in the past have enjoyed very cordial and warm relations. In 1947, Iran was the first country to recognize Pakistan after its independence. The two countries were members of the Baghdad Pact, later known as CENTO, which was an alliance against the USSR during the Cold War. They along with Turkey formed the RCD, which later became a larger group known as the Economic Cooperation Organization (ECO). The warmth and depth of ties between the two countries could be judged from the fact that during the 1965 War Iran sided with Pakistan. It also helped in putting down insurgency in Balochistan. The things, however, changed after the Iranian Revolution and Afghan war.

The visit of the Pakistani Prime Minister to Iran was a commendable move to mend fences with Iran and to recalibrate relations between the two countries to their mutual advantage. In the emerging geopolitical situation and the challenges confronting the region, amity between Pakistan and Iran is of utmost importance. Under the circumstances, all the stakeholders in Pakistan’s future and desirous of it winning a respectable place in the comity of nations, must be a little more discreet in commenting on issues which have bearing on state interests.

(Published in Monthly Tribute International on 01-05-2019)