Why the ouster of Nawaz Sharif is inconsequential for India?

Honoré Gabriel Riqueti, Count of Mirabeau and one of the founding fathers of the French Revolution, once observed that the former state of Prussia "is not a state that has an army, rather an army that has a state", some have attributed this to Voltaire. Several thinkers of eminence have noted that if this observation were to apply to any country in contemporary times, it is Pakistan.

One only has to study the history of that troubled country to know that few among their elected leaders ever complete their terms in political office. Most of leaders are are either executed or jailed by 'the state' (the Pak armed forces and ISI) after a coup. The more fortunate probably bribe their way out in exchange of being exiled to a foreign country. Occasionally, the army generals who led coups to seize supreme power themselves become victim of coups led by other factions in the army. If the state does not eliminate them, the Islamist extremists, ably supported by the state and the clerics, conduct assassination citing a myriad of motives such as 'treason', 'blasphemous practices', being pro US or pro Israel etc. 

These extreme measures have been ruthlessly appied at regular intervals such that they serve as a warning to those those who erroneously presume that their positions of power and their tenure in political office is a licence to develop a mind of their own and implement reform. The knowledge that they can be summarily eliminated, perennially looms over each and every elected leader in Pakistan and makes them operate with the utmost cautiousness such that they do not disturb the existing 'equilibrium' as determined by the powers that be. 

Last week, Pakistan’s Supreme Court ousted Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif from office and disbarred him from ever holding public office again. The reason cited was that the names of his children (not his) appeared on the Panama Papers and that he had undeclared properties abroad via offshore businesses.  Many extolled this move as a shining example of the independence of the judiciary in Pakistan, treating every citizen equally, irrespective of their bank balances and their standing in society. The judiciary was also lauded for showing zero tolerance towards corruption. The principal cheerleaders for Sharif’s ouster include the opposition leaders and perhaps Sharif's rivals within his party who are eager to occupy the coveted position of power.  

Quite surprisingly, these cheerleaders were joined by many in India in the media and the political arena, noting rather vacuously that Indian nationals whose names had appeared in the Panama Papers have faced no action, even going so far as to suggest close ties as a reason for inaction. This provided another proof of the bankruptcy of ideas among the opposition as they cite a country that has led terror attacks on India soil and hosted Osama Bin Laden as a beacon of moral rectitude.  

A closer look at the recent events in Pakistan suggests that Sharif was not even afforded the benefit of due process with a proper trial; he was compelled to accept the findings of an investigative panel as verdict without being given the basic right to challenge these findings or a facility to appeal to a higher authority. In other words this was a blatant violation of his basic rights as a citizen and contrary to the principles of democracy. 

Why one may wonder would the powerful go to such an extend in conducting this farce of a court trial. Why not get rid of him like they have done on umpteen occasions previously?  A plausible explanation maybe be that the Trump administration has been getting tough with Pakistan by blocking their financial aid for inaction against the Haquani terror network. The army and the intelligence know that any semblance of an coup de ta will garner bad press and probably even push them further away from their benefactors in the west, from whom they need for their millions to fight the perennial ‘war on terror’. Where these fund are actually directed is common knowledge. 

So how do they get rid of Sharif and dodge the global outcry? They get their puppets in the court to do their dirty work and bring in a charge of corrupting giving them a moral reason for dismissal.  Sharif's potential replacement Shahid Khaqan Abbasi was the principal accused in a National Accountability Bureau case registered in 2015 over the award of a liquefied natural gas import contract, Dawn News reported. Clearly there is more afoot here than an anti corruption crusade and this is hardly an occurrence to cheer.

Unlike the media and the opposition, the Modi government very wisely chose not to react to this charade. With the army possessing real power, very little is likely to change in that trouble country, especially their attitude towards India. They will not appoint a blatant Islamist as PM for the need foreign aid. But they will continue to their proxy war against India by covertly supporting, training and hosting terror groups. 

India needs to persist with their tough diplomatic stance towards Pakistan both bilaterally and multilaterally as we we work with allies and neighbors to isolate them in the international community. India needs to continue to give the army sufficient powers to confront and eliminate the various terror groups operating in troubled states such as Kashmir. No matter what is uttered by the new Pakistan Prime Minister, we must continue to be skeptical, prudent and vigilant.

The author can be reached at rajanlaad@gmail.com

For more articles by this author on Newslaundry click here and Swarajya click here!