THE main opposition party first wrote a letter to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), asking the lending agency to stop disbursing its scheduled loan tranche to Pakistan till it conducts a scrutiny of election results. The party, however, was lef t red-faced when the IMF refused to oblige. The opposition, not content with this answer, decided to hold protest demonstrations outside the headquarters of the IMF and World Bank in the United States.
What was more unfortunate was that these demonstrations were held when an IMF delegation was in Pakistan for a review before the release of a third tranche of $1.1 billion under the standby agreement, and negotiations were going on with Pakistani authorities. The protesters under the stewardship of someone involved in a sedition case demanded that strict conditions must be imposed on loans to Pakistan, including investigation into allegations of poll rigging.
The protesters chanted slogans for the release of their leader and against the armed forces of Pakistan. The imprisoned leader, while talking to journalists in Adiala Jail, justified the protest, but conveniently professed ignorance about the protesters raising slogans against the armed forces.
Now who can justify such an anti-state and anti-people behaviour? Political discourse at home on a political issue is democratic, but what should one call the action of asking foreign entities to put Pakistan and the whole nation into trouble? Is this loyalty to Pakistan? Is this patriotism? The fact of the matter is that the party is out to redefine everything.
