Pti Ki Safon Se Logon Ki Talash
Like many people, I too spent a long time believing that the internet and its platforms would help broaden our perspectives and bring different countries closer together. Over time, however, these platforms have instead made us more self-centered. Worse yet, rather than expanding our minds, we have become like frogs in a well, seeing the world through a narrow lens.
As I write this column on Thursday morning, I should be boldly proclaiming as a “senior journalist and analyst” whether the government will be able to pass its preferred constitutional amendments in the hurriedly convened sessions of the Senate and National Assembly. Even if Maulana Fazlur Rehman manages to draft a “consensus” proposal, the government still won’t have the two-thirds majority needed in both houses for the legislation. In the Senate, an additional vote will be required, and five more votes will be needed in the National Assembly, even with Maulana’s support.
Without wooing defectors from the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), securing a two-thirds majority seems impossible. The government, along with its political and non-political backers, is reportedly frustrated with a significant portion of the judiciary, accusing it of obstructing governance and trying to position itself as the supreme authority in the state. They are determined to rein in the “independent” judiciary, which they claim tries to dominate every administration. The situation has reached a critical point, where, as the saying goes, “all is fair in love and war.”
In this spirit, the government appears ready to go to any lengths to find defectors from PTI. Whether or not this strategy will succeed remains uncertain. If my acknowledgment of limited access to information means you don’t consider me a “senior journalist and analyst,” then so be it.
For the past two days, I’ve been worried about how little attention has been given to an important international event that took place in Pakistan. After a long hiatus, a major global organization held a meeting here, with the prime ministers of two major nuclear powers, Russia and China, attending. Both countries hold veto power in the United Nations. Russia, once considered a superpower equal to the U.S., controlled many states in Central Asia and Europe, which were then known as the Soviet Union.
In December 1979, the Soviet military entered Afghanistan to protect a “communist” government. The U.S. and its allies sought to trap them there, and Pakistan, under General Zia-ul-Haq, supported the “Afghan Jihad.” Eventually, the Soviet forces withdrew in disgrace, leaving Afghanistan, but the conflict had drained the Soviet Union, leading to its eventual collapse. Pakistan, however, gained little from this.
After the Soviet Union’s breakup, the U.S. suddenly remembered that Pakistan had been “deceiving” it by building a nuclear bomb, and sanctions were imposed on us. The situation worsened when groups like al-Qaeda, which had come from the Middle East to support the Afghan Jihad, started to organize in Afghanistan and our then-tribal areas. One faction carried out the 9/11 attacks, forcing Pakistan to become a “frontline ally” in America’s war in Afghanistan, causing devastation in our own country.
Returning to the original topic, the main point of today’s column is to inform you that the largest delegation at the recent SCO meeting in Pakistan came from Russia. By cautious estimates, nearly 300 individuals accompanied the Russian Prime Minister to Islamabad. As a journalist, it was my duty to explain why a country we played a key role in cornering in the 1980s sent such a large delegation to Islamabad, and what objectives they were pursuing. Unfortunately, I am unable to provide comprehensive answers to these questions, and my ignorance deeply embarrasses me.
During the SCO conference, many young journalists were active in the press center. Reflecting now, I realize I should have used my seniority to challenge some of them to investigate why the Russian Prime Minister came with such a large delegation and what significant points were discussed that could serve Pakistan’s short- and long-term interests. But hindsight is useless, as the proverbial “punch thrown after the fight” only hits oneself.
Like me, every Pakistani journalist focused solely on whether the Indian Foreign Minister Jaishankar would have a one-on-one meeting with his Pakistani counterpart at the SCO meeting. Some of my colleagues are optimistic that Jaishankar’s visit might improve Indo-Pak relations. I respectfully disagree.
The reality is that during the last SCO meeting in the Indian city of Goa, India was far more hostile. Our then-Foreign Minister Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari had attended and made statements regarding Kashmir that infuriated Jaishankar, who responded with harsh language despite his diplomatic background. In contrast, Jaishankar’s demeanor in Islamabad was relatively “friendly.” However, his speech at the SCO event was essentially “unchanged,” reflecting no shift in stance.
