With great assurance Gen Bajwa informed us in Apr 2022, that the regime change which ousted the PTI government, came of its own with “democratic” accord. This lie was born dead. And much that Bajwa and his cohorts did to resuscitate it, their efforts remained unavailing. The new lies pumped into the old one to give it a semblance of life, instead of raising it from the dead, merely ended up raising a mound of hypocrisy. And many bemedalled senior peacocks, each according to his own lack of conviction, added to this mound.
The regime change was a U.S sponsored act pulled off by a group of traitorous generals and treacherous politicians. The larger aim of this was to get rid of Imran Khan in order to realign Pakistan away from China towards the U.S.
Within this the lesser aim was that the theft by the thugs, whether these be the uniformed ones, or others, be validated by legal means or by brute exercise of power; and for immunities to be guaranteed against accountability for theft to be committed in future.
THAT WAS IT.
Those attempting to expose mega theft, like Arshad Sharif, needed to be assassinated. With little doubt, behind this was the army.
For the thugs to be assured of a secure future it became essential that elections either not be held, or if they had to be held, Imran Khan was not to be a part of this process. And so there was an attempt to kill Imran. In all probability, behind this too was the army.
The second big lie which was given flight by the army was that it had gone “neutral” i.e having loaded the dice against Imran Khan, while giving total covert support to the thugs, the army had decided to fold its head under its armpit. Some neutrality!
While going neutral the army forgot that there was a third entity in this equation as well, and that was the state, whose security it was the duty of the army to ensure. Not doing so would be tantamount to treason by omission. By folding its hands and standing back, while the state has progressively been allowed to go to the dogs, is about all that the high command has achieved.
If the high command is not to be moved by its oath to ensure national security, perhaps at least personal interest should move it in that direction. I suggest that in the next Corps Commanders’ Conference they very seriously examine the following:
-Thrice has Imran Khan reiterated a threat to his life.
-How serious is this threat? Whether the army was behind the first attempt on his life or not, the army would certainly know. A truthful answer to this question should help them to evaluate this threat with a fair degree of accuracy.
-In case a follow up attempt on his life is made who would be most likely to be blamed?
-What are likely to be the consequences of the next such attempt for the high command?
-Would they be willing to take the blame for this and face the consequences that ensue?
-If they are not willing to face such consequences, is it not time for them to beef up Imran’s security so as to reduce, or better still, eliminate this threat?
-And if it is advisable to do so, should Imran Khan be having scores of bogus cases registered against him? And should he be exposed to an assassin’s bullet repeatedly because of the insistence of various judges that he appear before them in person, knowing full well that the nature of such cases is bogus?
-Can the high command intervene to eliminate at least this one avenue of threat, and should it so intervene? Or should they remain “neutral”?
Seeing this obvious avenue of threat and not using its influence to close it down is pregnant with meaning.
Before it is too late the generals must decide, both for the good of the country, and for their own good, what this meaning is. Irrespective of the lies they have fed us, to themselves at least, they must finally tell the truth.
It would not surprise me to know that the thinking among the generals was that even if Imran was to be assassinated, nothing much of serious concern would follow, and with time would come immunity. Just in case such should be their thinking, they would do well to revisit the fate of Adolf Eichmann. If they do, their last reserves of humility may incline them to conclude that it was very difficult to predict the future. What is seen to be beyond the realms of possibility today, may change to probability in the days to come. And though the fear of God gets pushed back in the mind during the heady days of power, it may be advisable to not depend too much on certainties of tomorrow, which may be no more than the product of the wishes of today.