“HE was expressing his personal opinion,” was the explanation given after Lt-Gen (retd) Nadeem Ahmad appeared to make a definitive statement exonerating the army and intelligence services of any role in hiding Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad.

Gen Nadeem Ahmad is among the members of the commission of inquiry into the American operation which, the US says, led to the killing of the Saudi-born leader of Al Qaeda in May this year. The commission is headed by Justice Javed Iqbal, one of the most senior judges of the Supreme Court.

The view the retired general was expressing may be widely shared by all and sundry but there was one tiny problem. He is a member of the commission of inquiry. It would have been more appropriate for him to speak through the final findings of the inquiry. Or, if he had divergent views, once the report had been made public.

Then of course there was that famous Zulfikar Mirza ‘nangay bhookay’ (‘shirtless and famished’) statement as the Sindh senior minister chose to describe those who had migrated in 1947 and beyond from the Hindu-majority areas of India to Sindh. And of course his remarks about MQM leader Altaf Hussain added booster rockets to the affront.

In any case, Dr Mirza has few rivals in voluntarily making fiery speeches but that terrible evening at the Awami National Party Sindh leader Shahi Syed’s home was an exception. Perhaps, finding the doctor a bit unsteady on his feet, it was a TV reporter who is said to have ignited the incendiary Mirza.

Zulfikar Mirza was not scheduled to speak and was being guided away from a battery of microphones by Shahi Syed when the TV reporter shouted: “Mirza kiskay danday, kiskay isha’aron par chaltay ho?” (Mirza, whose tune are you dancing to?)

That’s when Mirza turned, pushed away those trying to guide him in a different direction, and arrived at the microphones and the centre of camera frames to say “I fear nobody” and went on to utter the words which were blamed as the trigger for the ‘spontaneous’ violence that claimed more than a dozen lives.

The violent protest dropped off dramatically and normality was restored as if by magic once, 36 hours later, the MQM leader snapped his fingers. Of course, by this time Mirza had had to feast on a huge humble pie, issue a public apology, and both he and his party describe his remarks as ‘personal views’.

So, while the Abbottabad inquiry commission member and the Sindh minister’s remarks were quickly described as ‘personal views’ in a damage-limitation exercise by his party, what about the TV ‘journalist’ whose ‘naughty’ question led to such bloody consequences?

Well, one can stick one’s neck out and say that if ever the TV reporter’s channel was put on the spot, it would also perhaps opt for the ‘personal opinion’ subterfuge. But how ‘personal’ are/were the spoken (and in case of the TV channel unspoken) words?

Let’s take up the latest. The general is a solider whose loyalty to the institution that gave him so much during service and continues to bestow much honour and privilege on him even in retirement must be beyond reproach.

When, after dithering for days on end, the government agreed to appoint a commission of inquiry into the Abbottabad attack and killing of the Al Qaeda leader, its composition gave a hint as to who the major stakeholders were. This is not to cast aspersions on its members or their intentions but the general was chosen perhaps to look out for the interests of his institution. Nargis Sethi, a senior, distinguished and powerful civil servant, whose career has benefited in no uncertain terms from her proximity to the prime minister, would obviously watch his back. The civil servant, other commission members and most notably the chairman have all maintained silence and can’t be cited for indiscretion.

But, given that his institution, of which the ISI is in an integral part, has come in for most flak on the issue as both its competence and its intentions have been called into question, the general may have felt constrained to share his ‘personal views’ what if a shade prematurely.

While the Musharraf years saw the MQM allowed complete sway over Karachi, Hyderabad and other MQM-majority urban centres more or less to the exclusion of other ethnic groups, the set-up that emerged after the last elections has tried often crudely and in bloody battles to redress the situation.

Zulfikar Mirza was articulating the sentiments of his constituents. In doing so, he was cementing his party’s position in its support base in Sindh rather than merely expressing his ‘personal views’. This was so well explained in his column by Cyril Almeida in this paper soon after Mirza’s outburst.

As for the TV reporter, his channel wouldn’t even think of heaping opprobrium on him as he brought such a cracking story to it. In fact, he may have earned the gratitude of the entire industry for the story soon acquired such running legs that it continued to generate excitement.

That the minister may have been egged on and that the resultant violence left many dead, injured and hundreds stripped of their means of livelihood as their buses and shops were torched by those who had risen in ‘spontaneous’ protest appeared marginal to the whole affair.

One wonders why generals, politicians and even media people bother with pretences. Nobody is fooled when terms such as ‘personal views’ and ‘spontaneous’ protests are used. There is only one leader who needs no such subterfuge.

His every word is owned as policy by his party. But as recent events underlined one hopes he doesn’t wait more than 36 hours to go public with his views or, shall we say, to make a policy statement.

The writer is a former editor of Dawn.

abbas.nasir@hotmail.com