IN the past week, it seemed attention was focused on the Middle East, Hamas, Israel and the much-discussed peace plan. But Pakistan is never far away from the excitement, even if it is overseas, and it was no different this time around — from discussions under the glare at the UN events to meetings in quiet rooms, tucked away from prying eyes, it appears Islamabad was always in the loop.

But as events unfolded (to the dismay of some and the excitement of others), at home it also highlighted the dysfunctional and confused ways in which the government continues to behave.

That Pakistan was working closely with Saudi Arabia had been evident for some time before the announcement of the defence pact. But that this collaboration was connected with the Gaza situation was only made public with the meetings held at the UN with United States President Donald Trump. One can only conjecture that the meeting at the White House with Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and the army chief may also be linked to that. But those of us in Pakistan didn’t have to wait for long as the White House meeting with the Israeli PM and the joint press conference with Trump made public the plan to end the onslaught in Gaza.

Click to see more

However, inexplicably, Sharif tweeted in favour of the Gaza plan quickly — perhaps too quickly. The rest of the countries that had been part of the meetings with the US president at the UN were more circumspect, especially as the details began to be made public. It took another couple of days before Ishaq Dar, foreign minister and deputy PM, realised the need to clear up the confusion. But how successful his efforts were is open to debate.

Mixed messaging from the government or just confusion? It was hard to tell.

What followed first was a press conference. But it was long and a bit unclear, and in this day and age of media management, where frequently journalists are guided as to what the headline-making quotes are, his words were left open to interpretation. This wasn’t just so in the immediate aftermath of the press conference but continued to be the case the next day too. One English-language newspaper, in its headline, spoke of Pakistan signalling a Gaza peacekeeping role, while another claimed that Pakistan was wavering because the Gaza deal draft had been changed.

Mixed messaging from the government or just confusion? It was hard to tell at that moment. But when Dar repeated the mixed messages in parliament days later, it appeared as if the ambiguity was deliberate. It truly was a case of breadcrumbing, in the slang of today.

Dar continued to argue the draft was changed but insisted that it was the only way to stop the Gaza bloodshed; the message was that there are few good choices and countries are forced to pick the least bad one. He dismissed the PM’s tweet as one made out of ignorance of the changes in the plan and insisted Pakistan continued to stick to its policy of a two-state solution. Unlike the Shama Junejo matter, he didn’t point the finger at the PM or distance himself from the matter.

But this ambiguity takes on a different light against the background of the commentary by many media people who, too, are arguing about the necessity to end the Gaza war. The rest, they insist, will come and be thrashed out later — for now, whatever can be done to stop the killings. One can make a wild guess as to where these arguments are coming from.

Is this simply a tightrope act, hoping to keep the rich allies happy as well as a populace which identifies with the Palestinians? Gossip in Islamabad has the answer but with little proof. Meanwhile, the government ends up looking dysfunctional and confused.

But if this were the only issue, one could put it down to the complexity of Middle East politics, as the West keeps reminding us. However, the dysfunction is a product of more than just limited choices internationally. This came through in the other crisis the government had to contend with in Azad Kashmir. When the protests first began, the government’s reaction was one of arrogance. Little attention was paid to the matter. In any case, the PM and his deputy were far too busy with their foreign tours. The media, too, it appeared, was so busy with international events that the protests at home were ignored, and covered only by social media, despite the phone services having been suspended there.

This dismissive attitude continued even as the protests turned bloody and lives were lost. The only sign that the government was aware of the matter was a reply given by ISPR during a question-and-answer session away from the cameras. Perhaps some intrepid reporter or observer provided the information to the media, in which the DG appeared confident that the government was in place in AJK and explained the need for everyone to pay taxes.

However, the government abruptly began paying attention to the matter when the protests turned violent. First Tariq Fazal Chaudhry and then an entire retinue of PPP and PML-N leaders were selected to talk to the protesting Kashmiris. Overnight, the issue catapulted to the headlines and stayed there as the negotiating team acceded to most of the protesters’ demands. The need to pay taxes, one assumes, can wait.

Did the change of heart come with the bloodshed or the inexplicable attack on the National Press Club in Islamabad? I, for one, am not privy to the decision-making. But it seems the government and media discovered the issue around the same time and the former rushed to resolve it. (And then we wonder why people believe social media and its lies.)

But between both these incidents, the picture emerges of a government given to ignoring the larger context of politics in which it functions — until a possible explosive situation becomes a full-blown crisis and requires damage control rather than deft and timely management. This is a surefire recipe for disaster.

The writer is a journalist.

Published in Dawn, October 7th, 2025