Asif Mahmood
The negotiations have, for the time being, failed. The question is: what next?
The answer lies in the latest tweet by Sohail Afridi, apparently posted at almost the same time as the talks collapsed. Giving his long march a fresh narrative, he writes: “Innocent people in my province are martyred in military operations and drone strikes, and this is called collateral damage.”
It is striking that the tweet makes no mention of terrorism, let alone condemns it. Its only target is the Pakistani security forces, accused of causing the deaths of innocent people through military operations and drone strikes. This was, in effect, the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa chief minister’s counterattack following the failure of the negotiations. Both the content of this counterattack and the state of mind in which the tweet was posted raise serious questions. They must be examined in context.
This does not appear to be merely a tweet issued in the heat of the moment. It seems to be part of a coordinated strategy. In the legal world, we often say that one provision must be read alongside another to understand its true meaning. In the same way, if Sohail Afridi’s tweet is read alongside Junaid Akbar’s rhetoric about Somnath, it becomes easier to see where the PTI leadership stands and in which direction it is heading.
Look further back, and manifestations of the same mindset can be found everywhere. We have heard that without Khan, nothing matters. We have heard that it would be better to drop an atomic bomb on the country than to hand the government to these people. We have even heard that it would be better to move to Afghanistan than continue living in this country. There have been numerous such statements, yet the party leadership has never reprimanded anyone for making them.
Now the chief minister himself is making statements that appear to lend support to the allegations levelled by Khawaja Asif. Sohail Afridi may not realise that he is helping build a case against his own party, and against himself. In the heat of political passion, even the party’s supporters may not understand the implications of this conduct. But it is dangerous. By the time they do understand, it may be too late.
If the strategy is to pressure the state into submission through this kind of conduct, it is unlikely to succeed. Earlier, the assumption was that protests and shutting down cities would force the state to yield. That, too, failed. However serious political problems may become, they can be resolved only through political wisdom and the ability to handle difficult situations. This approach will not resolve them.
The most important question is: where is that political wisdom? Why was it missing during the negotiations? Why are decisions that should be made by the party’s political leadership being dictated by others?
The reality is that while the political environment has become unfavourable for the PTI, it has become favourable for others. In these unsettled circumstances, a leader of the opposition sits in the National Assembly with only one seat of his own party behind him. Had the situation not been so fraught, the leader of the opposition would have come from within the PTI’s own ranks.
I am not casting aspersions on anyone. But a question rooted in human psychology inevitably arises: why would those who stand to benefit from the present environment make it more favourable for the PTI, or even allow it to become so, when they know that they themselves would be the first to suffer if circumstances returned to normal? Once things begin to settle down, they too could be returned to the sidelines.
The PTI is being swept away by its own tsunami, like a mystic so consumed by his own love that he loses himself in it. From the beginning, the party has cultivated a level of fervour among its supporters that has now taken the party itself hostage. Leaders who try to make a reasonable argument are made to suffer, only to break down later and complain that their own workers are calling them traitors.
When political passion reaches this point, how can the leadership agree to anything reasonable at the negotiating table? Negotiation is about give and take. The PTI has never taught its supporters that politics is the art of finding a way out of a dead end. Instead, they have been taught that everyone except them is a thief and a crook, and that their leader alone represents the ultimate standard of truth. In this worldview, everyone else might as well have no reason to exist.
The logical consequence is that every political encounter becomes a battle for the conquest of Somnath. The leadership is now itself afraid that if it says anything reasonable, its own supporters will make its life miserable.
Sohail Afridi’s tweet offers a glimpse of the direction in which the PTI is heading. What a pity!