Should there be exceptions to accountability?

We have Chaudhrys in politics and we have Khans too. However, he is the only Chaudhry who is also a Khan and the only Khan who is also a Chaudhry. He is one of the few leading politicians who straddle the two seemingly irreconcilable worlds of civilians and faujis.

This time round, Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan himself is in trouble. The report of the inquiry commission constituted by the Supreme Court is a scathing indictment of the interior ministry and his own leadership of this crucial arm of the executive. As a member of a distinguished military family, he knows that warriors fall on their swords in such circumstances to redeem their honour, rather than letting their detractor haul them on hot coals.

The Quetta Inquiry Commission Report, written by a judge known for his legal acumen and integrity, was released on the second anniversary of the APS incident that had united the national leadership in the resolve to combat terrorism in all its forms and manifestations. Before this incident, many of our leaders were cheerleading for the Taliban and our institutions were shirking from challenging them in their last stronghold. The JI and JUI tried to justify the Taliban’s barbarism on the grounds of US policy in the region and Imran Khan, who had won the unenviable title of Taliban Khan, wanted an office for the terrorist group in Peshawar. Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan almost cried with frustration when an American drone killed the head of Taliban, Hakeemulah Mehsud, because it ‘scuttled’ efforts towards peace talks.

Passed just eight days after the attack on the Army Public School in Peshawar, the National Action Plan (NAP) was widely hailed as a game changer, a document manifesting consensus of country’s ruling elite to set a new direction for the nation. Increasingly, NAP has turned into a stick to beat the government with. Most analysts argue that, apart from three points that are being implemented by the army, the government has fallen short of expectations on the plan.

In my opinion, there is simply no way to gauge the progress on NAP because it is not an action plan at all. As anyone familiar with the basics of management knows an action plan is not a check list that stops at enumerating a list of actions. An action plan narrates measurable actions that are to be carried out within a stipulated time frame and it also makes individuals and institutions responsible for carrying them out. NAP is important as a consensus-based policy guideline described in 20 bullet points, but someone had to turn it into an action plan and set out responsibilities with clear indicators for measuring performance. Someone had to collaborate with a host of national and provincial government departments that must be involved in the process of its implementation. And that someone was Chaudhry Nisar and the babus in his ministry.

The pivot for the whole activity was to be provided by the National Counter Terrorism Authority (Nacta) – and this authority was to be strengthened according to NAP, under the guidance of the interior ministry. Nacta itself was supposed to coordinate between various ministries and intelligence agencies. As Nacta became hostage to the turf war between different government arms, Chaudhry Nisar failed to play the mediatory role that was required of him and which is considered his main strength.

According to the commission report the executive committee of Nacta met only once – on December 31, 2014. The decisions made at this meeting, chaired by the honourable minister, were flouted by the minister himself. During the meeting, “it was decided (as mentioned in item no7 of the minutes) that, ‘Proscribed organisations were not to be allowed to conduct public gatherings / meetings’ and that ‘Action be taken against office bearers and activist of such organisations’.”

While Chaudhry Sahib oozes an aura of invincibility, strength and toughness while facing his political foes, his attitude towards proscribed organisations appears very different. The Balochistan chief secretary, in his courageous response, stated:  “Balochistan does not permit Ahl-e-Sunnat Wal Jamaat (ASWJ) to hold any meeting or propagate its views but the efforts of the province stand defeated if the very same organisation manages to hold a public demonstration at Minar-e-Pakistan in Lahore or is permitted to become a member or part of a larger organisation, ie Difa-e-Pakistan Council.”

For residents of Islamabad, it is not unusual to see their city adorned with posters and banners announcing a rally of a proscribed organisation in the heart of the capital. As the report has noted, one such meeting of ASWJ was held on Friday, October 28, 2016, in the hockey ground situated in Aabpara Sector G-6, Islamabad. Just before his public meeting, leaders of the proscribed organisation met Chaudhry Nisar and came back with some concessions from him. This meeting was held just before Imran Khan’s second dharna where these groups were expected to join. So the political context is quite clear.

Perhaps the most interesting bit of the report is the response of Chaudhry Nisar regarding providing permission to this rally. “It is not my responsibility to grant or deny permission for public meetings. It falls within the purview of district administration. On inquiry, I was informed that neither ASWJ sought permission nor such permission was granted”. As the report concludes, “it follows that if a meeting is held in a public place without seeking or being granted permission it can be held, even if it is held by a proscribed organisation and the functionaries of the state would look the other way.”

The report criticises many other individuals and institutions as well. However, the interior ministry is the pivot around which the whole struggle against extremism and terrorism revolves. Democracy has no meaning without accountability; and Chaudhry Nisar cannot be the exception to the process of accountability. The work of the court does not stop here either since this commission was part of a suo motu case that will continue and may harm the minister and the government further.

The consequences of these attitudes on the part of the ruling elite and the governing institutions are more than clear. The sketch of the suicide bomber, who killed a whole generation of lawyers, shows how unremarkable marginal characters are becoming victims to werewolves wearing the garb of religion.

Ahmad Ali, the suicide bomber, who killed himself two days before his 29th birthday “came from a broken home as his parents were divorced and his mother had remarried. He was academically weak, merely scoring a third division in Matric and FA and failed his graduation having elected not to take the examination. His grandfather was a member of the Awan clan from Punjab and had settled in Quetta. His father had worked as a peon in a school. …… Ahmed Ali appears to be an ordinary and unremarkable man in every respect” (Quetta Inquiry Commission Report 6.6).

The writer is an anthropologist and development professional.

Email: zaighamkhan@yahoo.com

Twitter: @zaighamkhan