SPY EYES

The 21st century; where every tom, dick and harry has an opinion and the power to impose it.

If Pakistan were to manage a decent start to wrapping up a decades old mess, is now the right time?

The recent airstrikes at the Pakistani Check Post in the Mohmand Agency of Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal areas left a nation of 187 million in shambles. With the Shaheed Jawaans’ funeral and photographs repeatedly playing all over Pakistani television, the fingers pointing towards the US have increased exponentially in this week. The NATO airstrike fueled a sentiment that has for years discovered a decent abode in a perturbed and beaten down society. This disposition is reflected in the jaw-dropping success of an anti-drone and predominantly anti-Imperialist streak visible in Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf’s campaign accompanied by a widespread murmur of ‘puppet leaders’ quandary that several opposition parties and the media have raised. Post Memogate Fiasco, one attempts to link the two events: Is this the Iron fist to intimidate Pak Army? We might never find out for sure, but there is enough evidence to highlight divergence.

Firstly, even if a direct attack on the Pakistan Army by NATO forces could not possibly have been predicted, the idea of Pakistan being part of the problem and not the solution is not a new one.  Pakistan has found it hard to make it to daddy’s good books for a while now. Republican Presidential candidates have been competing in anti-Pak sentiment. The way anti-Drone campaigns are far more likely to flourish here than neutral ones, a harder stance on Pakistan works for their masses. Obviously this thirst for greater skepticism towards Pakistan amongst American people finds its roots in the media. For months American media has been working towards creating a picture of helplessness on the part of NATO and US forces against a sadistic, all-powerful and ill intentioned Pakistan. It is surprising that the Pakistani media never picked up on this trend. Those who followed what the West was being fed realized something unpleasant was heading Pakistan’s way soon.

Secondly the Osama bin Laden assassination attracted much suspicion even amongst allies. For instance the Rabbani Assassination, Haqqani Attacks and rather tall claims by Mullen targeting the Pakistan Inter Services Intelligence (ISI). There have been a series of attacks in Afghanistan by terrorist groups that have been linked if not with Islamabad, then with Pakistanis. Another convenient allegation is that these volatile groups generate their strength from Pak Army and ISI. More recently Michele Bachmann’s heroic act of exposing the vulnerability of Pak nuclear sites against Jihadists earned her the title of nuclear whistleblower while the news spread across the media like wildfire. The allegation against Pak Army and ISI have escalated to a point that ‘containing’ for the average Joe seems to be the only sensible option.

Whether or not the ISI has exploited its strategic links to intimidate its strategic allies, this has become the mainstream narrative. So for Pakistan to claim that the 26 September event was 100% out of sync with the existing state of affairs can only be owed to a pinch of negligence and another of denial. The demand for change in policy because the US officials complained that their hands were tied too close, and the Republican stance of ‘containing’ Pakistan have, combined with other events mentioned earlier, cornered us into the ‘problem’ department. Pakistan as of now remains the ‘bad guy’ in most books.

The imprudence of indifference towards a rising storm of multiple narratives, all working against the ‘prosperity’ and attacking the very credibility of local tales, is perhaps unforgivable. At this point when so many embarrassing truths have been revealed it is crucial for the establishment to face our problems and confide in the people. Yes, Pakistan needs US aid, in a stagnant economy, a military that relies on the US to sustain itself and a nation that is heavily dependent on the military; we can anything but afford cutting ties. America’s narrative is relevant because with power and an indisputable edge on the economic and military front, it becomes a ‘self-fulfilling’ prophecy. Amidst this mêlée of existing narratives, it is crucial for the weak to predict the direction of the storm.

While international media conveniently trends towards a positive shift in Pak-US ties (while remaining suspicious of Paki intentions, implying that Pakistan is giving in), the Pakistani media continues to highlight the macho bravado of the Military and Political Establishment against US. And once our media picks on the duplicity of the statements being made at home and abroad, another bubble will burst, with new repercussions for the state and society.

For the Pakistani Military and Political establishment, as of now, the most important agenda is conveying the truth. We cannot endure without US economic and military assistance. Then what should the plan of action be? At this point, it is definitely smart to move a good few yards away from thin ice. Honesty for now with the people is a dire need. Closed doors and strategic interests can perhaps wait especially after blows of such magnitude. What’s more relevant than discovering the truth, is understanding the face of the combined energy that is created when multiple narratives collide. Then comes the part where steps can be taken to change the course of an unfavorable tide.

In today’s Globalized world, the role of the state and society with respect to one another have been redefined. A state that must move its every muscle to the beat the people’s drums collectively produce, masses that seldom understand the complexity of state relationships, yet insist upon having an opinion and imposing it. To channel the population’s momentum and to fine-tune the beat that they will have to dance to, the state decides to tell lies. It creates a plot that serves their purpose and in order to sustain itself, it targets the credibility of what the ‘others’ have to say. All states tell lies or sugarcoat truths, yet relatively few get caught red-handed in the act.

If the masses play jury, no matter of public interest can be solved behind visible closed doors. It is emergence from these covert channels that creates the ‘puppet’, the ‘traitor’, the pointing fingers. For Dempsey to tell off the media for raising the ‘what next’ question might have been the ethical thing to do, but now it’s too late. Pakistan is on the verge of a nervous breakdown. Already closed doors and dodgy dealings have earned the military and political establishment a bad name, both, internationally and back home.

In conclusion, it is imperative to realize the power of narrative for Pakistan. We have earlier faced diplomatic crises because we lack a coherent and effective media strategy. With events escalating to the point of direct attack, one of the spheres where we need to make changes is undoubtedly our tendency to ignore what’s being said.