Pakistan PM Nawaz Sharif kicked out, while India sleeps on Panama Papers
Nawaz Sharif has been unlucky for the third time and thrown out from the prime ministerial chair in Pakistan, this time by the Supreme Court which disqualified him over the infamous Panama Papers.
Interestingly, while the neighbouring country has taken such a strong action against its prime minister, the Panama leaks scandal rocked India too last year and several celebrities like film stars Amitabh Bachchan, Aishwarya Rai, DLF owner KP Singh and industrialist Gautam Adani's elder brother Vinod were among the over 500 Indians named in the scandal.
At least 415 of these are said to be under the scanner and being investigated. However, over 15 months later, one has no idea what action has been taken against them by the Modi government which claims to have zero tolerance for corruption!
Coming back to Sharif, the 67-year-old politician had to suffer the ignominy of being described by the Supreme Court as being dishonest to the nation and disqualified from holding the highest office.
The Panama Papers have also shown cricketer-turned-politician Imran Khan having offshore business holdings. As the one who principally mounted the attack on the Sharifs, he appears to have got away with explanations and clarifications and there is no public outcry.
Pakistan’s polity, having been subjected to elitist and corrupt control right from the beginning of its birth in 1947, and having suffered military rule for long years, is grossly inadequate and inept. This should cover all institutions that are in the play in the current crisis.
Look at the Supreme Court that ordered and formed the joint investigating team (JIT). It specifically stipulated that personnel from the military intelligence be included in the JIT, a clear giveaway of the possible role of the nation’s army. In no other country the military engages in probing business dealings and economic offences.
The JIT, comprising mostly middle-level officials, became controversial right from the word go. The Supreme Court registrar was supposed to have made telephone calls to insist on particular officials. The apex court did not relish the insinuation coming from the government and the ruling party. There is no last word on the role of the registrar.
There is also no finality about the role played by two officials who the Sharifs said were inimical to them. They had probed the Sharifs earlier - and this familiarity was the apparent reason why they were brought on the JIT. Whatever the reason, it created suspicions about the impartiality of the JIT exercise.
As it happens in such situations, officials of Sharif’s party publicly attacked the apex court and the JIT. Whether they did it on cue from the PM/party or were talking out-of-turn is again in the realm of speculation, but does not do anybody any good. The critics reacted sharply to this and the JIT became controversial by the shenanigans of the politicians.
Sharif could have gambled by recommending dissolution and called for early election. President Mamnoon Husain, who is to nominally accept this recommendation, is a Sharif-appointee. But presidents in Pakistan have in the past (like Ghulam Ishaq Khan) behaved differently at times, often taking the cue from the all-powerful army.
Secondly, the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) is to take the call about announcing the poll timetable and conducting the elections. Its objectivity and impartiality have been repeatedly challenged by many, particularly Imran Khan, who has also attacked the Supreme Court.
The ECP’s conduct of the 2013 polls was challenged by Imran, long after he had lost and conceded defeat. A probe into the conducting showed that although Nawaz’s party had rightly been shown as having won, irregularities and inadequacies surfaced.
In short, political institutions in Pakistan remain inadequate. They are attacked by any loser and remain under pressure, with little respect and sanctity attached to them.
The role of the media, like the other institutions, remains lacking in objectivity. It is a divided media. Even an otherwise respected newspaper like Dawn had editorially asked the prime minister to “step aside, at least temporarily”. The newspaper may be seen as saying the right thing, in principle, but would be well aware that hardly any prime minister quits the job “temporarily”.
Like most developing democracies, Pakistan’s polity is governed by dynasties. It is hardly surprising that speculation revolves around Shahbaz Sharif as likely to have been not indicted by the JIT.
Pakistan may be heading for another Sharif at the helm, and for an election, sooner than later, with all the accompanying chaos. That is, if Imran or anyone else, does not lay another siege, paralyse the government and governance (the stock markets have already shown a 2,000-plus downfall).
The last siege was widely said to be at the behest of the army, or a section of it. It was lifted after a single phone call, supposed to be from someone in the army.
Democracy hangs by a thread in Pakistan - a leash whose handler is the one who has declared allegiance to “national interest”.