The action that was taken is only symbolic. It is designed as face-saving device for the PTI government, caught between a scandal that floats on the surface of record and the carefully-crafted perceptions of fighting corruption. And who knows? It may well be aimed at protecting the real culprits. Some facts are noteworthy.
First, a few days ago the prime minister publicly stated that he had seen the report and that neither Jehangir Tareen nor Khusro Bakhtiar were involved in any wrong doing. It was unprecedented for a PM to give a clean chit like this. What made him give this clean chit in the first instance, and what happened within days that necessitated taking some action, even though perfunctory and symbolic?
Second, the crisis erupted under the watch of Food Security Minister Khusro Bakhtiar whose family played a crucial role in helping break the PML-N’s dominance in the Punjab by splitting seats in South Punjab on the promise of creating a new province. The inquiry report says that Khusro’s close relative Makhdoom Omar Bakhtiar had gained “undue benefits” from the scandal. Yet instead of being shown the door, Bakhtiar only had his portfolio changed from National Food Security to another important portfolio, the Economic Affairs. Why?
Bakhtiar himself has claimed that he had asked for portfolio change to avoid ‘conflict of interest.’ Information Advisor Firdous Ashiq Awan, however, has rebutted it and claimed that his portfolio was changed by the prime minister. It has only provoked laughter. A question mark has been placed and a lot of explaining will now be required for the mere portfolio change of Khusro Bakhtiar.
Some reasons must have been recorded on the file for ignoring the advice of the commerce secretary, the decisions of ECC and the cabinet against the subsidy. What were the reasons and who gave them?
Third, Jahangir Tareen’s case is no different. Like Khusro Bakhtiar, he, too, has a special status in circles closest to the prime minister, albeit for different reasons. He has been a steadfast associate of Imran Khan and indeed a major financier of the PTI for long. On Monday, as news of the cabinet reshuffle emerged, important PTI officials claimed that Tareen had been removed as Chairperson of the Task Force on Agriculture. Tareen retaliated by asserting that he never headed a task force. “I was never chairman of any task force. Can anyone show me a notification with me as chairman? Please get your facts right people.” This prompted circulation on the social media of official communications indicating that Tareen indeed had been appointed as convener of a task force on agriculture.
Questions will have to be answered as to how Tareen was appointed convener of some official task force and allowed to participate in official meetings despite having been disqualified by the Supreme Court?
Fourth, a spokesperson of the Prime Minister, Nadeem Afzal Chan said in a TV talk show that the FIA report was not made public by the government but had been leaked by some quarters. By whom and for what purpose it was leaked, he did not say. Questions will continue to be asked whether the report indeed was leaked by some quarters to force the hand of the prime minister.
The report, while pointing out the beneficiaries of the policies and decisions, is silent on the most crucial issue of who allowed subsidy on sugar export and why at a time when the sugar availability in the country did not permit exports? It has been reported that the commerce secretary had opposed subsidy on sugar exports and supported it on the basis of some hard calculations. This summary was approved both by the ECC as well as the cabinet. What, then, made the Punjab chief minister counter the cabinet decision and give subsidy on sugar export? After all, the Punjab CM is not known to take major decisions on his own without a nod from Bani Gala.
A crucial source to arrive at the bottom of the case is the note portion of the official files that records the views of all state officials in the hierarchy about a proposal under consideration. It throws light on the views of different officers about the proposal, the reason for and against a proposal and how the final decision was taken. Some reasons must have been recorded on the file for ignoring the advice of the commerce secretary, the decisions of ECC and the cabinet against the subsidy. What were the reasons and who gave them? This information holds the key. If it is not made public by the government, any citizen may demand it under the Right to Information (RTI) law.
Since ages there has been a nexus between politics and sugar and wheat trade that needs to be broken through policy reforms. When in the opposition, Imran had set some standards to judge corruption and called for severing this nexus between politics and corrupt practices. He cannot escape being judged by those very standards that he had set. Mere reshuffling the cabinet is not aimed at breaking that awful nexus. It is an eye wash, a face saver and a cover up of corruption of those to whom he is beholden politically.
The writer is a former senator