Debate on Ayaz Sadiq's speech in NA

Debate on Ayaz Sadiq’s speech in NA

Wazir Ali Shah

Accusation continues over the recent statement of Ayaz Sadiq in the National Assembly. Government officials are pointing finger at the former speaker of National Assembly for his precipitous statement that maligned the standing of Pakistan Air Force’s befitting response to Indian intrusion into Pakistan in the wake of the Pulwama terror attack. But the former speaker National Assembly is not willing to move an inch back from what he had said. He counter attacked the government for giving his statement a “political colour” and blamed Fawad Choudhry, Minister for Science and Technology, for helping India create hype and helped them interpret his statement differently and in favour of New Delhi.

Here many questions come to mind but for me the basic question must not be about its interpretation as it comes late. The actual question needs to be asked: Why Mr Sadiq was so careless to speak about an in camera meeting about a sensitive and strategic issue?  Common man, in more precise words a Pakistani, now seems afraid about their custodians unfolding the secret to the enemy. A common man is also perplexed if our strategic secrets are in safe hands and its secrecy would not be compromised.

People are also confused about the discussion of Minister of Foreign Affairs, Shah Mahmood Qureshi, trying to convince the opposition to let Abhinandan go otherwise India would attack Pakistan. Because, the battle had already begun and the risk of its intensity was there. Our forces were alert to confront and teach a lesson to India. As far as the question of Abhinandan is concerned, the common view is that he was released in due consideration of the Geneva Convention. Secondly, the diplomatic engagement or intervention of the USA, UAE and Saudi Arabia was there to de-escalate the tension between Pakistan and India. Majority of people took the decision as wise and timely based on economic challenges. Being open to dialogue and executing such a decision was also expected from any setting government to diffuse the tension. So, the criticism seems political than anything else.

Criticism can’t break the country apart. It strengthens the governance system. A tolerant society takes criticism positively. They take it as a catalyst to become stronger assisting them to take corrective measures. Criticism exists everywhere but its acceptance, its level of reaction is quite different in intensity. For example, a social critic and political activist, Noam Chomsky declared America as the world’s biggest terrorist country. One of his interviews, this prolific author went on to say that “The United States is regarded as the greatest threat to world peace”

John Bolton, a former national security advisor of USA, wrote a book after his retirement “The room where it happened” in which he mentioned all the failure and strategic steps and failure taken towards different countries like India, Afghanistan, Europe and China. It could not harm great America because they believe that a unit is not sufficient enough to dwindle its root of existence. They take criticism as reform as tolerant society.

The Indian media has always remained controversial to project their opposite version of Pakistan. Why are we doing a game of point scoring taking Indian media so seriously? Why we are not pointing fingers towards voices coming out from Indian itself over discrimination, religious extremism and separatist movement.

This point, I would stand firmly with the version to stop arguing any more over the issue because our unique pattern of political mind set up would not allow us to take things positively. Instead, we believe and seek revenge.  For example, the opposition may redirect the issues towards Imran Khan’s book “Mai Aur Mera Pakistan ” where he has hit the army and highlighted its role from a different perspective. “In the Line of Fire”, Pervez Musharraf” has unveiled the state’s affairs openly.

Pakistan will stand alive forever Inshallah. However, we are more concerned about declaring someone as “Ghaddar”. It may lead the state towards destruction. If the countries have to break, then the USA has no existence but they ruling the world. We also need to take fair criticism as constructive. Unfortunately, here in Pakistan, the opposition leaving no stone to show thump down Prime Minister Imran Khan claimed as being selected blaming coming down with a heavy hand on opposition. On the other hand, declaring someone as “Ghaddar” is easy but the aftermath is not that much simple. It restrains our way towards peace and prosperity.

Criticism opens horizon to initiate strategic and corrective measures. But turning political issues into provocative statements cause defaming and maligning the country. Constructive criticism and open discussion make the nation stronger. However, subduing the views, standpoint and freedom of speech forcefully would push the countries towards disadvantageous zone.–Wazir Ali Shah

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.