Abhinandan

Had Nawaz Sharif been Pakistan’s Prime Minister, the country would have not done what it did after Indian jets violated its airspace on 26 Feb, 2019, opined Dr. Moeed Pirzada, a prominent media personality and political analyst. Dr. Pirzada was speaking with Fawad Khurshid of Public News when he explained how the former premier’s narrative serves Indian interests has. “Ayaz Sadiq’s statement was what Nawaz had told him to say. I am convinced that whatever had been said was instructed to Sadiq from London,” Dr. Pirzada maintained.

Dr. Pirzada claimed that for the last several years New Delhi because of its deep ties with Washington has become very important for Islamabad. “From Dawn leaks to Nawaz’s silence on Kulbhushan” is a reminder for all of us to understand how Pakistani politicians facilitate Indian establishment.

Dr.Pirzada explained to the anchor that Pakistan’s media lacks both a strong will and capacity to generate pro-Pakistan narrative to protect national interests. “You see politicians are on TV in Pakistan. Where does it happen in the world? It only happens in this country,” he said.

Read More: Nawaz Sharif’s anti-Pakistan interview and its cost: A snake in the grass?

Finally, he suggested to upgrade Pakistan’s education system in order to produce competent graduates who could deal with the modern, competitive world.

What has happened?

On October 29, Ayaz Sadiq alleged on the floor of the NA that Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi had said that “if we do not release Abhinandan, India may attack Pakistan”.

“I remember Shah Mahmood Qureshi was in the meeting in which Imran Khan had refused to attend and Chief of Army Staff General Bajwa came into the room, his legs were shaking and he was. Foreign Minister said for God’s sake let Abhinandan go, India’s about to attack Pakistan at 9 pm,” Sadiq recounted the events of the meeting.

On 26 Feb, 2019 Indian planes had crossed the Line of Control and struck deep inside the Pakistani territory at Balakot (near Abbottabad, in the Pakistani province of Khyher Pakthunkhwa) prompting a counter-strike from Pakistan Air Force (PAF) on Feb, 27. In the ensuing dogfight India lost two planes (a Mig-21 and an advanced Russian built SU-30) and subsequently Pakistan had closed its airspace to Indian planes for several weeks.

Indian Pilot, Wing Commander Abhinandan, captured by the Pakistani forces, was released as a goodwill gesture by Pakistan. Indian media, on the other hand, continued to claim that Abhinandan was released after India ‘forced’ Pakistan to do so.

Read More: Mumbai attack comments: What future holds for Nawaz Sharif after his Anti-Pakistan statements

However, days after Pakistan shot down India jets, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi confessed the defeat while expressing an urgent desire to have Rafale jets. “India is feeling the absence of Rafale. The entire country is saying in one voice today, that if we had Rafale, the results would have been different. The country has suffered a lot due to selfish interests earlier and now politics over Rafale,” he said.

Nawaz Sharif is a new Sheikh Mujibur Rahman?

While talking about traitors in Pakistan, Dr. Pirzada pointed out that “we even could not declare Sheikh Mujibur Rahman” a traitor.

Interestingly, on January 9, 2018 talking to a group of lawyers, led by Naseer Bhutta, in the presence of Maryam Nawaz, Punjab Governor Rafique Rajwana and PML-N Chairman Raja Zafarul Haq, Nawaz Sharif compared himself to Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the architect of Bangladesh’s separation from Pakistan. ‘Mujibur Rahman was not a traitor, he was a patriot, we push him into treachery’, he claimed.

Sharif complained that he was being treated the same way that the people of Pakistan were being treated; he compared himself to Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and blamed the establishment for making him a traitor. “Those forces are still at work today”, Sharif said.

Read more: Why Spy chronicles’ won’t rescue Nawaz?

While there is no comparison between what happened in Bangladesh and what happened in Sharif’s disqualification case, Nawaz was determined to view them under the same lens. It’s not sure whether Sharif is actually ignorant or willfully disregarding the fact that Sheikh Mujibur Rahman expressed his desires of separation in a clandestine meeting with the then Indian PM Jawaharlal Nehru nine years before the separation took place. The details of the meeting are present in Global Village Space magazine’s December 2017 publication, in an article by Dr Moeed Pirzada.

It proves that Mujibur Rahman was always a traitor and Nawaz Sharif was not only defending a traitor, he was also comparing himself to him.

blank