Both mountain and molehill

The commotion caused by the Dawn story on the civilian government supposedly telling the military to take action against militants claimed its first victim as Information Minister Pervaiz Rasheed’s resignation was accepted by the prime minister because the enquiry conducted by the interior ministry has found a “lapse” on his part. It is clear then that he is not at this point being accused of actually leaking the story and, in that respect, little headway has been made. Another enquiry now is underway by a team of representatives from the IB, the ISI and the MI, and whether one head is enough or more are about to roll has yet to be seen. For now quite a few media commentators are seeing the affair as a case of scapegoating one individual. Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar says that Rasheed, when he was approached by the journalist, should have convinced him not to run the story – although how a minister can get an independent newspaper to suppress stories was unexplained. The judgement, or lack thereof, shown by the news organisation in publishing the story can be kept separate from the issue being investigated and the summation of the views expressed by prominent lawyers and senior journalists appears to be that the newspaper under question can be asked to prove certain contents of the story while choosing not to disclose its source of information. There is also the reasoning that any enquiry into the matter has been already rendered biased by terming the story planted before the completion of an enquiry into the matter.

Several other questions have also been raised. The story has been denounced, particularly by the army and the government, as damaging to our national security. Yet, political observers have noted that no one has been able to describe articulately what damage was done by the story – except, we might add, that it appears to have put the civilian government under immense pressure at a time when it is already facing an open and violent ‘movement’ which is very obviously designed to overthrow it by fair means or foul. But it can be safely said that a civilian government facing such a problem has never figured in the definition of national security in vogue in this country. Analysts have argued that if the story was false, then there are no issues between the government and the military and everyone can go on as normal. If it was true then the government was simply repeating a truism in saying we will be internationally isolated should we not take on militancy. Chaudhry Nisar says that there has always been a consensus between the civilian and military leadership over non-state actors. If that is the case then there was no reason for the matter to be blown out of proportion. The government and military could have issued a stern denial – as they did – and moved on. The claim that the story gave succour to our enemies also has the effect of showing our weaknesses and insecurities, internally and externally. What gives true succour to our enemies is the impression that perceived precarious balance, or imbalance, between the army and the civilians is dangerously worsened even at a time when we face possible international isolation – all because of one suspicious news story.