New Delhi: As Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf leader Imran Khan’s arrest sparks unprecedented attacks on army establishments in Pakistan, New Delhi has remained silent, observing the unfolding of this extra-constitutional drama across the border.
There are fears of a spillover of extremist forces from a spiralling Pakistan with no stable authority in place, but there is still widespread belief that the establishment will eventually prevail, albeit weakened.
After a burst of India-Pakistan squabbling on the margins of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation ministerial meeting, there has been relative calm in cross-border rhetoric, even as the political crisis in Pakistan reaches a critical level.
The United States and the United Kingdom have commented on Pakistan’s situation. Even the Taliban regime in Afghanistan has made a statement expressing concern. However, Pakistan’s closest ally China and its rival neighbour India have not issued any public statements on the matter.
It is rather clear from precedent as well as current intent that India would not be making any statement, except perhaps an anodyne one about monitoring developments.
Former Indian high commissioner to Pakistan, T.C.A. Raghavan also said that there is unlikely to be any substantial comment. “I am sure that the agencies and the Ministry of External Affairs are following it, just like everybody else in India is. But, I don’t think they are going to say anything. Because this is an entirely domestic issue,” he said.
Over the years, the Indian external affairs ministry has largely commented on developments in Pakistan only in relation to the treatment of Hindus and Sikhs – and refrained from commenting on domestic political developments.
When the Pakistan Supreme Court upheld the death sentence against ousted Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in February 1979, then-Indian PM Morarji Desai and foreign minister Atal Behari Vajpayee had also refused to comment. “It is their internal affair and I do not want to interfere,” Desai had said, as quoted by Indian Express.
Two months later, Bhutto was hanged at Rawalpindi Central Jail. Indian Express’s front page had a separate article on then-opposition leader Indira Gandhi expressing shock. Bhutto was obviously a “victim of a conspiracy of certain vested interests within and outside Pakistan,” Gandhi had said.
Raghavan, who is the author of a book on India-Pakistan relations, said that the Indian government’s silence at that time had ignited a major debate. “Many people then felt that the government could have taken a strong stand and asked for clemency or that he not be executed. The debate continued for years after that.”
‘Everything is partisan’
Incidentally, Indira Gandhi had attempted to harness the pro-democracy movement in Pakistan’s Sindh province led by Bhutto’s widow Nusrat and daughter Benazir to not only needle Zia-ul-Haq, but to also divert from a volatile domestic political front in 1983.
Foreign minister P.V. Narasimha Rao had said in parliament that India was watching with distress the “sufferings of people who have been demanding restoration of democracy in the country”. Gandhi reportedly said that she “could not shut her eyes” to developments in Sindh as “such events might affect India as well”. The Pakistani foreign office scrupulously listed all the “provocative” statements of Congress leaders.
Predictably, Zia asserted that there was a “foreign hand” behind Sindh disturbances. The proof, he said, “could be found in the supporting statements by India and some other countries”.
Thirty three years later, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi mentioned “Baluchistan” in his Independence Day speech from the Red Fort in 2016. Pakistan responded that it was proof of Indian support for the Baloch separatist movement. Till now, there has been no further reference to Pakistan’s troubled province by Modi.
Any statement from India, beyond the usual banal phrases, would be counter-productive. “If we say one thing or another or are seen to be favouring one person or another, that person will get totally discredited. Assuming Pakistan weighs in that this party would be better, that party would be totally discredited,” said Sharat Sabharwal, former Indian envoy to Islamabad from 2009 to 2013.
Even if other countries are merely referring to following constitutional and democratic norms, any statement would be considered more loaded if issued by New Delhi. “Everything is partisan in this current context,” he said.
In the context of its impact on other countries’ policies, Raghavan believed that the internal conflict in Pakistan over the last year has had no major external implications.
Sabharwal noted that the acts of the extremist forces were usually calibrated by a “strong authority”. “Suppose there is no authority – I am not saying that the state will collapse because that will not happen – but there if there weakening, then there will be not much pressure to regulate the actions of these groups”.
He also pointed out that Pakistan continues to pay the price for creating instability in Afghanistan. “An unstable neighbour with these kinds of forces, terrorism, religious extremism and which is uncontrolled, is never a good prospect…So it should be a concern for everyone”.
For weeks, Pakistan has been in a constitutional grey zone with elections not being held in the stipulated time after the dissolution of two provincial assemblies. There is also a question mark as to whether the general elections also will be held in October or postponed further.
The search for a solution is complicated due to a deeply polarised polity, in which all the institutions are partisan towards either in favour of the military establishment or Imran Khan. This is an unusual scenario since all branches of the state were usually perceived to be largely aligned, with a few exceptions during certain periods in past, with the interests of the Pakistan army.
‘Imran has gone further in facing the military than anyone earlier’
Sabharwal, who recently published a book, India’s Pakistan Conundrum, observed that in India there may be a “sense of elation” in some quarters that Pakistan is “getting what they deserve”.
“They will have this kind of crisis situation along the way because of the dysfunctionality (in institutions) but they will pull along”.
The average PTI supporter usually deploys phrases like “unprecedented” to describe their current confrontation with the army, including the arrest of Imran Khan and the violent protests. This is an exaggeration as many prime ministers have been arrested in Pakistan’s history. However, the manifestation of the anger by PTI workers attacking army property is a distinctive new development.
“The fact is that Imran Khan remains popular at the street level. He has gone further in facing the military than anyone earlier. Protests against the Pakistan army are not new. Anti-military sentiment in Pakistan is always there. Imran Khan has harnessed this sentiment more effectively than anyone before and taken a position far in excess of others,” said Raghavan, who was posted in Islamabad from 2013 to 2015.
But there are limits to targeting the army even in the current polarised scenario in Pakistan. The violent attacks on the army premises, especially the vandalisation of the Corp Commander’s house in Lahore have “impacted [Imran Khan’s heft] negatively,” felt Raghavan.
The PTI’s second-tier leadership had been trying to distance themselves from the protests. But, the selective audio leaks of phone conversations between the PTI leaders stand to undermine that narrative. Ordinary party supporters have also claimed on various social media platforms that there were outsiders, presumably planted by the agencies, who were behind the more violent incidents of burning down of public properties.
‘Nobody is written off forever’
The arrest of Imran Khan – seemingly a surprise – was part of the Pakistan army’s plan to bring back former Pakistan PM and PMLN leader Nawaz Sharif, who was deposed and disqualified for life by the judiciary, many feel.
“The military now feels that (former Pakistan army chief Qamar Javed) Bajwa made a mistake by disqualifying Nawaz Sharif. They need to level the playing field by disqualifying Imran. And then reach a settlement where both are allowed back. Till that happens, they can’t effectively play both against each other,” said Raghavan.
The former IFS officer assessed that Imran Khan realised that his disqualification was imminent. “He knew the only reason that had not happened is due to the current Chief Justice and President, and their terms end in September”.
The treatment meted out to Imran Khan, according to Sabharwal, is a recurring theme of the Pakistan army’s relationship with civilian leaders who want to assert their independence. “They [the army] want to keep their primacy. Whoever questions their primacy, they cut him down. Nawaz Sharif had started doing it, so they got him disqualified him. His brother is more acceptable broadly. Now Imran Khan was questioning them.”
Despite the soaring popularity of Imran Khan and the partisanship of the higher judiciary, the perception remains that the military will come out as the victor, even if weakened.
“That is the default view that when push comes to shove, basically people will fall in line and nobody really wants the military wants to be targeted in the way that Imran Khan supporters have done,” said Raghavan.
While Imran Khan and the army may seem irreconcilable right now, the possibility of them coming together in the future cannot be completely dismissed. “Nobody is written off forever. If tomorrow Nawaz Sharif comes in and starts behaving tough with the army, then they can bring in the old fellows. Benazir (Bhutto) was out for a long time and Nawaz Sharif was out for ten years during Musharraf’s time,” opined Sabharwal.