Transcription
Gobari, thank you so much for joining us here on the podcast. You know, um, we did an episode on, uh, Imran Khan's, um, incarceration, his time in prison, the fact that there was concern about no proof of life because his family hadn't connected with him for almost 4 weeks. And last week, uh, his sister confirmed, uh, that he was, in fact, uh, alive and gave us a sense of, uh, what's happening with him in prison.
But there has been so much interest from our, uh, listeners about the situation in Pakistan, and we thought who better to help us understand, um, help our wider audiences understand what's happening inside the country. And of course, a lot of focus and attention on, um, the new powers of the army chief, Assam Monourir, the, the control that the military has over the country. It's always been behind the scenes. Um, but it very much feels now like it's at the, the forefront of Pakistani affairs. Um, we'd often seen the, uh, civilian government at the forefront running things, but it, it now seems like it's, it's very clear, uh, that he is perhaps, um, the most powerful person in the country. Um, and of course, you are a British Pakistani woman. You grew up in the country, but you had to also leave, uh, because of the military in 2018. I just want you to help us understand and paint a picture for us of these new powers that the military has. What does it mean for Pakistan? What does it mean for the region? And just how powerful have the constitutional changes, um, made?
Thank you so much, Yela. Um, let me first talk about a little bit about what you said, whether, you know, how the military has previously been in the background. Um, but I would say, you know, the military has been at the front before as well. Uh, Ayub Khan, um, Yahya Khan, then General Zia, then General Musharraf, and in between, we saw, um, somewhat democratic, uh, dispensations. But what is new is that starting 2018, um, we have now, as acknowledged by everyone, a hybrid sort of a, uh, dispensation in place. And if I may say so, it's becoming hybrid and hybrid. [laughter] You know, so, um.
What do you mean when you, when you say that? So, so in 2018, I mean, everybody in Pakistan now calls this a hybrid system. It is neither just the military nor just a civilian, a civilian government, a democratically elected government. In 2013, Pakistan saw the first ever, um, transition of power from one civil government to the next, um, which was peaceful, which was without military meddling, without anything.
And the first time in its history since partition, the first time in 1947 history. Yeah. Because the parties had begun to mature. They had begun to respect each other's mandates, even if they didn't fully accept it or said, "Oh, there's been rigging here or there." But there was that maturity. And I remember that back then I put on my military boots or hat and said, this won't go on. If I were the generals, I'm going to put an end to this because the stronger democracy grows, the deeper it sets its roots, the smaller and smaller the political role of the military gets. And you know, it's now commonly sort of understood that as a revenge for the co-d, the charter of democracy between Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, uh, a new person was introduced, like, you know, the agent provocateur or or the spoiler. And lo and behold, um, in 2013, they, the military did not manage to get him enough seats, but in 2018, 18. I was there in that election, and my god, I mean, I was even, I was abducted right ahead of the election because people like myself were, um, shattering the narratives being built. There was such a clampdown on media. I mean, Imran Khan had, for example, become known as Mr. U-turn Khan. And I remember there was an accident and a friend of mine, a reporter, uh, was reporting, uh, live, uh, from the spot where a truck had overturned because it was making a U-turn. And he was told, "You can't use that. Find another way to report that the truck has overturned. It was overloaded. It made a U-turn." And it, and we were not allowed to use the word, uh, engineering or rigging or, um, people were made to get up and, uh, leave the studios during live election, um, um, uh, coverage. If they were critical of him in any way.
If they were critical of him or of what they could see happening, not just of him. He, he was only, only the face of the problem. The problem was what the military was doing by itself. And, and of course, you know, one of the retired ISI generals has a few years ago, two or three years ago, his name was Zahir Islam. He went on record as having said, you know, we'd had enough of these, uh, two political parties, and we decided we're going to do something great for the country and try someone new. So, um, and, and so there we, there we are. And what we have now with this latest amendment, as you mentioned, to fast forward, um, I think it's done two, two main things. And one part of it, which you haven't mentioned, but of course, I'm, I know that you're aware of it, is to do with the judiciary, uh, which is also extremely important. And it's even more important to understand why that has happened and what might have been done better because the judiciary too was actually a problem. The fact that Pakistan, you know, people say the military is too powerful. It's got the barrel of the gun, everybody else is at the, but the fact is that the military has not actually ever, uh, come into power in a bloody coup. It's never actually used its judiciary.
As you say, worked parallel in this kind of hybrid format. It hasn't needed to.
It hasn't needed to. Exactly. Because, well, A, it's not an easy thing to open fire on your own people. Yes. Uh, on a massive scale and very openly. But the real thing is that they, uh, there have been obviously always people to facilitate their engineering. Yes. So we are traditionally, historically, the judiciary in Pakistan, very tragically, has always facilitated, always provided a cover, always provided immunity, uh, against the the coups that were mounted. They, they have traditionally been a problem. And the judiciary was very much involved when Imran Khan was brought to power. It was very much involved when, uh, transgressions were being carried out. And, you know, people talk about the cases about Imran Khan now being political in nature, but I would like for your audiences to understand what part of it is political. These, most of them, I'm not actually even, I mean, some of them may not be the right thing to do, uh, uh, like use archaic laws to, to, you know, bring charges against him. But the fact is that there are archaic laws on the books, and Imran Khan has broken them. The issue now, the reason these are called political is not because the charges are false. It's because had he been in favor, he would have continued to have immunity and not been sort of prosecuted.
I, I just want to bring you to this moment and, and now these kind of, um, you know, the constitutional reforms that we're seeing that have given, um, Asim Munir the status of Field Marshal, have have given him lifetime immunity, him and a handful of others. How dangerous is this moment for Pakistan, given its history, given what you've described, and, and how Pakistan has gotten to this moment where it feels like it is perhaps furthest away from from democracy or a democratic process? You talked about, you know, the in the 2000s how things started to shift and the parties started to mature and the country felt like it was on a path towards a more democratic system. But do you feel that's now been derailed as a result?
I think it has been derailed, definitely. Um, and I think the moment of derailment really, the, is it, even though I will talk about what has happened with the 27th, uh, amendment. I think the moments of derailment are a little bit in the past when the, you know, after Imran Khan was, you [clears throat] know, he, he lost his majority in the parliament, the military declared, and, and he was supplying to the military, to General Bajwa. He offered him, and this is also on record, lifetime service for, um, um, not letting the vote of no confidence happen, etc. I think the derailment happened when the military actually, in sort of so many words, said, yes, we have been meddling, and we've seen the error of our ways, and we are now going to be neutral. And, and, uh, Imran, obviously, I don't know if you're aware of it, he, he flayed them, he did all these rallies and said, what do they mean by neutral? Animals are neutral, people cannot be neutral. Um, my, uh, my guard is supposed to guard me and not stay neutral if there are decoys coming in and stuff like that. And he dragged it back, back in. I feel the other, uh, people who I hold responsible for this are the other politicians, the other parties, because I do believe that, uh, Mian Nawaz Sharif said, you know, this was your gift to the nation, you deal with it. And, and he was pulling them in. And Mian Nawaz Sharif was not taking on, you know, the task of handling, uh, his or one of his opponents or whatever.
And, so are you saying?
And I think that was a fatal mistake. And they're back in, and they're back in with a vengeance, and they're stronger than ever, the military. And then it's the 27th amendment. I mean, when you say dangerous, yes, it sounds extremely, it, it is frightening. Why is it unprecedented? Why would an army chief need lifetime immunity? What for? [snorts] And, and from whom? And as I understand it, I think he's not even going to be accountable to his own institution. I think this rule change, on the one hand, while it sounds very dangerous, may not be enough to protect anybody when things actually change. I mean, who could have thought that, you know, in Pakistan, you could not even name military generals or, you know, in, in certain ways, Musharraf was, was given the death penalty, even though he was saved by Rahil Sharif, sent abroad, etc., but he was given the death sentence. And then the Supreme Court did hold, uh, hold it up. And believe me, you know, when I, when I mentioned to you the, uh, period of post-2008, saying that, uh, majority, um, democracy was strengthening, etc. With each passing event, uh, the military had been, uh, losing its power somewhat. That was the period when, for the first time, uh, the army chief and the ISI chief were actually summoned into parliament to explain what had happened.
After Osama bin Laden's raid. And, and then for the first time ever, a military dictator was given a death sentence. At least a sentence was passed, even if it wasn't carried out. Um, so laws on the books. Yeah.
I guess, um, are you also saying that civilian leaders have used the military when they've wanted and needed throughout the course of Pakistan's history, and that's what we've seen played out here as well?
I, I, it would be more fair to say that the, for me, that's my perspective, the military has used civilians, be it in the media, be it in the politics, be it in the judiciary, or anywhere, really. It is, it is, uh, ultimately the power broker that uses people. And I think if, if these, so, if, if these people stop providing that support and help, they, it, it can come out of the quagmire. And that is what had started happening because of the charter of democracy. So somebody entirely new had to be brought in.
Do you think this period, like other periods in Pakistan's history where we've suddenly seen shifts and changes and people come and go and these big personalities like Pervez Musharraf suddenly find that he had doesn't have a place in the country and be held accountable? Do you believe that this period too will, will pass and perhaps Imran Khan will either be, he'll cut a deal and he'll have to leave the country like we have seen other prime ministers do? What is your prediction for how this period will end?
I think it is entirely possible, and I would not say nothing, none of this is possible, but it doesn't look probable to me. Uh, and that is simply because, uh, we saw that when other prime ministers cut deals, they left the country. Um, they could be relied upon to a large extent to do as they'd said. But I think, uh, with Imran Khan, he's far more unpredictable. And that's why I don't think it's very likely in the very near future. If we see a change, uh, in, in, in the way he's dealing with the army or the things he's saying or tweeting or whatever it is, or how his party is behaving, then that might indicate in the future that it can change suddenly. But right now, there seems to be no, um, sign for that.
G Bkari, thank you, um, so much for, for joining us here on the program. Thank you so much, Elder.