Qamar Bashir
Former Press Secretary to the President
Former Press Minister to the Embassy of Pakistan to France
Former MD, SRBC, CEO, ATV
The Chief Minister, Ali Amin Gandapur, is a maverick—unpredictable, agile, fiery, and cunning. Unlike any other chief minister in Pakistan’s history, he has the unique distinction of disappearing from the scene while in office, leaving the people of his province, the administration, and the federal government bewildered and speculating about his well-being and whereabouts.
His latest disappearance was followed by a raid on the KP House, a property of the KP government, by police, rangers, and contingents of Punjab police. This led to the Chief Minister going into hiding, and later escaping through arduous means to return to the safety of his province.
The story that the Chief Minister later narrated after his latest disappearance was akin to an American adventure movie, where the hero outwits an entire force of police, rangers, and other law enforcement agencies. He described how he frequently changed hiding places, climbed dangerous mountains in the dark, traveled miles to reach the road, succeeded in hitchhiking, and eventually reached the safety of his province.
The mystery surrounding his disappearance fueled a flurry of conspiracy theories, suspicions, and doubts. After being incommunicado for over 24 hours, he reappeared in the KP Assembly, delivering a fiery speech that showcased his defiance of what he termed the federal government’s tyranny. He vowed to continue his politics of agitation, asserting that the army and all of Pakistan were his, that he had the constitutional right to travel freely and express himself, and that he would fight any infringement on these rights.
What did the federal government achieve from this incident? The Federal and Punjab governments employed both legal and illegal tactics, such as digging up roads, placing containers along routes from KP and Punjab to D-Chowk, Islamabad, and using tear gas and rubber bullets to prevent protestors from reaching their destination. FIRs were registered against the Chief Minister and PTI supporters, and many were arrested. This show of force was intended to intimidate the KP Chief Minister and assert federal dominance over the provinces, conveying that the federation could crush provincial rights at will. The message was clear: even a chief minister could be treated as a criminal and lawless individual, potentially arrested and jailed on minor or major pretexts, as if he were a wild animal. This also undermined the mandate of the people who elected him, reducing their choice to nothing at the whim of the federal government.
Is this an ideal situation? Can a chief minister, elected by over 41 million people, be reduced to the status of a fugitive, running for his life? What kind of message does this subhuman treatment of an elected official send to the people of the country? Does it suggest that the federal and provincial governments are at war with each other? Does it imply that the people’s mandate holds no value when faced with the brute force of the federal government? Is it now up to the federal government to decide whether people from other provinces can access the federal capital?
What impact does this treatment have on the people of KP, who elected this chief minister? How will members of the KP Assembly view this situation, and how will it affect the chief minister’s ability to govern? How will the provincial administration interpret this event, and what will be the impact on relations between the province and the federation? Most importantly, what mental setback will this incident cause for the people of the province?
The mysterious disappearance and subsequent reappearance of Chief Minister Ali Amin Gandapur in such a dramatic and unprecedented manner reflect deeper tensions between federal and provincial dynamics in Pakistan. The situation raises fundamental questions about governance, constitutional rights, and the balance of power between the center and the provinces.
Gandapur’s vanishing act, and the way it was handled, suggests a dangerous precedent where a provincial leader, responsible for the welfare of millions, feels the need to evade law enforcement like a fugitive. This scenario paints an unsettling picture of a breakdown in communication and trust between the provincial government and the federation. His narrative of survival, moving through treacherous terrains and evading capture, adds a dramatic flair to the event, reminiscent of an action movie, but with real political implications.
The response of the Federal Interior Minister, who deflected responsibility back onto the media, exacerbates the already tense atmosphere. It highlights a failure in leadership at the federal level, where the duty to ensure law and order is sidelined in favor of political posturing. The fact that such an incident occurred without clear communication from either side reflects poorly on both the federal and provincial administrations. It raises legitimate concerns about the erosion of democratic norms and the growing authoritarianism in the political system.
The conspiracy theories and speculations around Gandapur’s disappearance demonstrate the fragility of public trust in institutions. In a time when transparency is crucial, the lack of clarity has only deepened mistrust. His fiery reappearance in the KP Assembly, with bold claims about the defiance of federal tyranny and his constitutional rights, resonates with many in the province who already feel marginalized by the federal government.
The raid on the KP House, involving police forces from another province, crosses a delicate boundary. It sends the message that provincial autonomy is not respected and that the federal government can unilaterally impose its will, even on an elected chief minister. The symbolism here is potent: a chief minister, elected by millions, being forced into hiding, reduced to a fugitive status, and fleeing for his life. This not only undermines the dignity of the office but also signals to the people of KP that their elected leaders are powerless in the face of federal might.
What does this mean for inter-provincial relations? This incident has set a dangerous tone, suggesting that the federal government is willing to override provincial rights and the democratic mandate of the people. It reflects a broader struggle between the center and the periphery, where provinces like KP may feel increasingly alienated and disempowered.
The political fallout from this episode could be significant. Within KP, this treatment of their chief minister might galvanize anti-federal sentiment and deepen existing frustrations. It could also weaken the authority of the chief minister, who may now be seen as vulnerable to federal intimidation. On a larger scale, it could further strain relations between the provinces and the federation, leading to a cycle of retaliation and conflict.
Ultimately, this situation underscores the fragility of Pakistan’s federal system, where political power struggles often take precedence over governance. The treatment of an elected leader like a criminal sends shockwaves through the political landscape, undermining the very foundations of democracy. The challenge now is how both sides can de-escalate tensions and work toward restoring trust, not only between the federal and provincial governments but also among the people they serve.
Comments are closed.