Farrukh Khan Pitafi's Official Website

Author Archive

“Whereas sovereignty over the entire universe belongs to Almighty Allah alone, and the authority to be exercised by the people of Pakistan within the limits prescribed by Him is a sacred trust.” Thus begins the Constitution of the Islamic Democratic Republic of Pakistan. I have read these lines again and again throughout my life and have never been able to divine their meaning. Sovereignty, I take it, is a mundane, human concept. Why do we then need to drag the name of the Almighty into every line that we write? This question takes my imagination to the Almighty Himself. Would He, in his infinite wisdom, really care what these tiny insects crawling on a small blue-green planet write in a constitution that is seldom enforced? I think not. He could have forced us all to spend every single moment of our lives in worship. He could have advised us all to tattoo His name and attributes on our foreheads, but He did not command us to do that. Then why do we have to start the constitution of a republic with words that tell us that we have responsibilities to uphold but no rights whatsoever? That the sovereignty we are so vociferously protecting from Blackwater, and other waters, does not even belong to us?

These lines, and several other moral defences, advanced by the self-appointed guardians of the Islamic state often make me feel as though I am suffering from dyslexia. I think of this and realise that on this newspaper’s editorial pages a war is being waged for and against secularism. ‘A secular state is a moral state’ by Ishtiaq Ahmed (Daily Times, March 9, 2010) and ‘Amendments for a secular constitution’ by Babar Ayaz (Daily Times, February 2, 2010) are two good pieces that were not difficult to read, understand or subscribe to. But, of course, there was a passionate rebuttal of all things secular by Dr S M Rahman titled, ‘Is secularism that sacrosanct?’ (Daily Times, February 22, 2010). Since Mr Babar Ayaz mentions young citizens too and I consider myself among those who, like Peter Pan, refuse to grow up, I think I can add my perspective, if not anything substantially new, to the discussion. Hence I hope my puerile ramblings will also be forgiven this once.

Dr Rahman has given a number of references, both fictional and real, to qualify his central argument that a secular state ignores the due import of morality. To understand what morality actually means, I had to google the word and the following definition was returned by dictionary.com: “Conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct, moral quality or character, virtue in sexual matters; chastity, a doctrine or system of morals, moral instruction; a moral lesson, precept, discourse, or utterance.”

Through this I finally understand what Dr sahib means. However, my learning disorder bars me from seeing the bigger picture when I try to integrate this framework into politics or matters of the state.

Having written a recent column on the pernicious, even failing, censorship regime in the Islamic republic and having been thoroughly scoffed at, I have no problem in comprehending when morality is defined as virtue in sexual matters or chastity. Somehow the Islamic state is obsessed with preserving our modesty. And since the most defining feature of this obsession is the premium placed on virginity, you can always fear that one day the moral brigade will institute a law creating the posts of virginity inspectors and modesty registration officers. Our wafer thin apparel of morality is already visible though. A fire breaks out at a girl’s hostel in Rawalpindi on International Women’s Day and six girls perish because the hostel managers have built a chicken coop, rather than a dwelling place, to protect the shame and modesty of the residing girls.

Yet the zeal of the pious ones does not end here. Which are the critical laws that they can boast of as their contribution? The Hudood Ordinance, the Blasphemy Law, the Prohibition Law or the law declaring Qadianis (Ahmedis) to be non-Muslims? The details of the innocents who have suffered due to the exploitation of these laws will take several volumes to cover. Suffice it to say that these laws, in terms of Islam, are highly derivative and yet they have been projected as the critical mass of the great faith. And these laws are powerful enough to make almost any life miserable.

I am sure Dr Rahman is not defending the misuse of the above-mentioned laws, but many do. In fact, those who consciously framed these laws left ambiguities in them so that they could be abused just like other authoritarian tools. And this all comes down to one simple fact. While the majority minds its own business, there are those who want to enslave others and force them to lead lives according to their personal whims. This pattern is not at all new. In history, religion or so-called morality has not been their only tool. The supremacist few will stop at nothing to reduce options for you, make life a living hell and stymie all free and creative thought. All this never actually had anything to do with any religion. The opponents of secularism are then mere agents of the forces that want to subjugate us and keep us prisoners of contradictory, reductionist ideologies.

I could have presented a number of historical examples from my favourite tomes like Will and Ariel Durant’s Story of Civilisation and works of Russell or even Karen Armstrong’s books, but I will not. Only if you want to learn about the true damage the conservatives can do to you, read Karen Armstrong’s twin autobiographical books Through the Narrow Gate and The Spiral Staircase.

But I believe in a future for this country and I want it to succeed. The best examples of world nations that I can find have adopted liberal secular democracies and hence have succeeded in making a difference. If you have a more compelling contemporary alternative in mind, I would love to know about it. Till then we need to bring such changes to our constitution that will help us live and prosper.

Secularism can be as bad as they claim, but it has given hope and happiness to billions. Science can be bad too, but it has given us countless inventions and technology without which we cannot be called civilised. I want to live with the civilised world and can only wish Edward Said were alive to expose our Occidentalism as he had once exposed the Orientalism of the West.
(The column originally appeared in Daily Times dated March 11, 2010. Click here to see the original.)

The pious ones in the Islamic republic, who cannot digest the image of a newscaster sitting without a scarf on her head, have hardly any issue with gory and violent images on the screen

Dr Amartya Sen is known for his work in welfare economics and the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences that he received. But our knowledgeable ones, so effectual at connecting dots, have not traced him back to another of his interesting works — that of procreation. His daughter Nandana Sen is consistently building her reputation as not only an established actress, but also a hot siren in Bollywood. For the last two years she was in the news for her controversial role in the movie Rang Rasiya or ‘Colour of Passion’. Ketan Mehta’s portrayal of the life of 19th century Indian painter Raja Ravi Varma, apart from pushing quite a few boundaries, also features a nude scene performed by Nandana Sen. While the scene is said to have been shot quite aesthetically and is said to be an inextricable part of the movie’s plot, the Indian Central Board of Film Certification quite understandably found faults with it and advised a review.

This small anecdote reminded me of the Pakistan Television (PTV) dramas in which a drowning girl or woman is rescued with her dupatta still intact. Never mind her life, her modesty needed to be preserved. It is beyond my comprehension that, while Pakistan is so marred with ideational contradictions and parochialism courtesy the repeated assaults of authoritarianism and absolutism, why should an established democracy like India live in such a state of denial? Is it perhaps because India might be freer, by far, than Pakistan, as, since independence, the people of both countries have endured almost a shared experience of foreign and domestic oppression before being liberated?

In any case, the story of our state is sorrier still. I do not want to challenge any deeply held beliefs but only point out that our consistent refusal to admit what is evident to our eyes is hurting even these beliefs. For instance, when circumstantial nudity is not permitted even in theatres or television, it is quite natural for a shadow industry to evolve under the very nose of the censor board. And, since society at large refuses to accept the very existence of the said industry, it devises no means to regulate it. Uncountable abuses like child abuse, breach of privacy, forced pornography and even recorded rapes become the norm of the day.

Of course, a number of excuses are given to maintain this state of denial. One such argument is that televised nudity exacerbates sexual frustration and, hence, results in crimes like rape. Interestingly, if this argument is to be accepted at face value, Pakistan should not have witnessed the high ratio of sex related crimes we are accustomed to. But that, clearly, is not happening. Until the state finds some better means of stopping such crimes, it must be said that only truthfulness can spare us an inundation of such unwanted hazards. For instance, while many may pretend otherwise, ours is not a monolithic or sacrosanct society but a rather complex one. Even during Ziaul Haq’s time, pornographic content was usually freely available in the video stores. Today, downtown stage shows also cater to the baser needs of men with a travesty for striptease. Why are the DVDs of such shows available openly in the market? Sorrier images you will never see.

But, since we are in absolute denial, this trade is booming. Those who oppose censorship relaxation on the grounds that it affects family values also seldom pause to reflect. While I am at a loss as to how on earth any set of images can affect family values, even if we accept that such a thing can ever happen, the current crude state of affairs is bound to hurt these values far more visibly. For instance, in civilised parts of the world, where sense has already prevailed, there are methods to regulate such content. When a movie is released it is given an age rating certificate. Likewise, even on television this method is visible. So all that parents have to do is bring home parental control technology and the problem is solved. The same rules apply to the cinema.

Since in both India and Pakistan the censorship board refuses to approve nude scenes, albeit circumstantial, it often happens that even in movies with innocent storylines there appears a song or a scene that makes the entire movie unwatchable for minors. And, of course, it is not only about nudity or sexual depiction alone. Since there are no age rating standards for films and television, the actual harm is done by violence portrayed both in the news and entertainment. But somehow the pious ones in the Islamic republic, who cannot digest the image of a newscaster sitting without a scarf on her head, have hardly any issue with gory and violent images on the screen. No doubt then that, apart from the severed heads of terrorists being displayed on television, our children have to endure the footage of animals being slaughtered on the pious days of Eid-ul-Adha.

But parental approval and the child’s mental growth are not the only things that are affected. The most important casualties of this sorry state are taste and aesthetics. When societies are obsessed with both denying something as obvious as this and keep this booming industry alive on the sidelines, culture becomes a wafer thin excuse for such activities. And every cultural activity is replaced with poor sex-oriented performances. This cannot be tolerated for the sake of art or culture, whether nude or non-nude.

Then let us face it: there is nothing obnoxious about the depiction of the human body without clothes. We overreact because we are not mature enough to make the clear distinction between art and erotica. The moral brigade too behaves as if all religions in the world were revealed, not to end the exploitation of mankind and to help the oppressed, but to stop the spread of nudity and obscenity. This, however, is not true. And then, no matter how much such fellows struggle to keep us in the Stone Age, the internet and the sheer bravado of those who love art and culture ensures that no censorship can stop the forces of change. For a country that is so helplessly lagging in the arts that it has no distinct architectural or cultural identity of its own, this piece is a desperate appeal to reflect.

The column originally appeared in Daily Times dated March 4, 2010. Click here to visit the original.

Far out in the uncharted backwaters (please do not confuse this with Blackwater) of the unfashionable end of the Western Spiral Arm of the Galaxy lies a small unregarded yellow sun. Orbiting this, at roughly 92 million miles, is an utterly insignificant blue-green planet. And on it somewhere towards the south is a small country whose ape-descended life forms are so primitive that they think of themselves as God’s chosen people. They are funny people too for they call their small country an Islamic Democratic Republic (IDR). Funny because, despite being called democratic, their country has been dominated by self-appointed dictators who chose to call themselves the ‘custodians of Islam’ (Islam being a well established religion on the planet) and national interest. Funny too because, despite calling themselves a republic, almost everything they do needs financial support from abroad and, while they happily call themselves Islamic, they do not show even an iota of understanding of any faith in the world.

The people of this IDR have a distinct national sport called hatred. First, hatred was a contagious disease, which then mutated into a deathly sport. It leaked from a frozen prison cell orbiting a nearby solar system, reached this planet too and is now played in every part of the galaxy where sentient beings exist. Here is how it is played: The people of an entire country choose one powerful man to be their target and, through telekinetic powers, try to make him disappear. When they cannot accomplish anything through that, they resort to crude language, mudslinging and, if nothing still works, they use their courts to hang him or the country’s secret police to get him slain in broad daylight. The former trick was employed in the case of the country’s first democratically elected prime minister. The latter used on his daughter who was not a male member of the species but had more guts than any man in the IDR.

Currently the target of the game is the country’s president, Asif Ali Zardari, who happens to be the son-in-law of the first democratically elected premier, who, you have guessed it, was killed through a court decree. The biggest crime of this prime minister? Demanding rights in a country founded on the principle of democracy. The court in question is still considered the saviour of the country’s future.

The president also happens to be the husband of the assassinated daughter of the above -mentioned prime minister, who herself had two shots at the premiership. When she was ruling the country the theme adopted by the IDR’s conscientious men was to oppose a woman’s rule. But, funnily enough, the conscientious men of the IDR do not display any shame when they have to encircle any female foreign dignitary, like, say, Hillary Clinton, to ask for more financial help. But the president’s wife and her father are both no more, thanks to the ministrations of the IDR and, hence, they are generally revered as martyrs.

The only man the people of the IDR have issues with is the president because: one, he is still alive; two, he still wields some powers that make the conscientious men of the IDR jealous; and three, because, thanks to the perpetual propaganda and mudslinging by the country’s establishment, it is so easy to dislike him. So, will it sound queer if somebody in Punjab, the most irritable and affluent, if a bit obscurantist, part of the country, and where oral tradition surpasses any prima facie evidence, tells you that Benazir Bhutto was assassinated by terrorists or the establishment or the then dictator, but by one in her own party or relatives? I think not.

The IDR recently faced an upheaval when the dictator of the time tried to sack his judicial chief and the judicial chief, who had sworn to be loyal to the dictator through a Provisional Constitutional Order (PCO), refused. The judicial chief became an instant bestseller and everyone sided with him. The dictator in his desperation jotted down a list of allegations against the judicial chief and filed a reference to disqualify him. In a rare display of esprit de corps, the judges in the apex bench froze the proceedings against the judicial chief and threw the reference, along with the allegations against him, out of the window. So far so good. The people of the country were emphatic that the judicial chief would throw the dictator out and protect the constitution and democracy in the country. But the restored judicial chief allowed the dictator’s election as the president to take place. The dictator was then beaten through democracy and is now gone, but the same judicial chief now insists upon reopening cases against the democratically elected president framed in a similar fashion as the reference against his own self. It is interesting that none of the conscientious ones of the IDR have displayed the guts needed to remind the judicial chief that he is supposed to be the custodian of democracy.

Now back to the president who is the target of the above-mentioned game, which now is being called the ‘Get Zardari Movement’. This narrator has tried to study the president and is often astounded at the fact that, while the grand narrative portrays him as the evil one, he is actually quite a likeable guy. Someone who is ready to listen. Someone who is ready to listen and is part of a family who, thanks to the IDR’s politics, is enduring a broken family. But will that change the way the people of the IDR perceive him? Not at all. Apart from the fun part of the game, it is always emotionally gratifying to think that there is someone out there who can be blamed for all your self-inflicted ills. Currently, nobody is even ready to imagine who the next man on the line will be. The people of this country, including this narrator, are all mad. And in this silent rush of madness, nobody but the IDR is bound to lose. So the IDR will continue to be the saddest part of the blue-green planet and has no chance of any change for the better, for there is no change of heart. Talk about big time double standards and the sorry state it has left us all in.

This column first appeared in Daily Times dated Feb 25, 2010. Click here to read the original.

The research methodology of the Pakistani political elite remains woefully flawed. Consequently every research effort yields queer dividends in the shape of further exacerbated crises. It takes no rocket scientist to study and follow the examples of established democracies where opposition parties form shadow governments and take up the tedious task of oversight and preparing for the day when they would rise to power. Hence, whenever the opposition replaces the government, there we see a new group fully prepared for handling the national crises. Not in our country, though. Here the sole agenda of every opposition member is to throw out the incumbent government and for that no area of specialisation is developed. Every member discusses diverse matters ranging from energy issues, inflation, judicial activism, defence, foreign policy, and if any time can be spared, health and education. This replaces the expert opinion with simplistic, populist and often unrealistic slogans. And when these parties rise to power, there is no homework done. In the current situation, however, the onus has been placed on us mortals in the media and civil society. And then, since the ongoing war on terror ensures that some semblance of secrecy has to prevail for the greater good, the information reaching the media is usually patchy, unreliable and often ripe as a vehicle of propaganda. We pick the most appealing piece of information and use it to put a spin on the situation according to our own worldview. Whenever a political group relies too much on the media for any policy decision, it often ignores the inherent flaw in the plan, that of mortal weaknesses and the interests of businesses owning any particular media outlet. In a free world where institutions have taken root, politicians would seldom be found blaming the media for their own lack of preparation or incompetence. In Pakistan, however, when a crisis starts, the resulting polarisation is given an ideological twist by the spin-doctors while invoking the highest values of the political profession. Yet, when anything goes wrong and these parties realise that they have been used, they put all the blame on the media. This is unfair. As journalists, it is our unfortunate duty to know as much of everything as we can. Certain better trained among us have acquired the ability to cultivate an image of being better informed than they actually are. In reality, what happens is that the juicy bits of information that they disclose in the media are usually provided to them by their sources that often include the shady wilderness of mirrors, or simply put, the intelligence agencies. Since this information is provided strictly on a need to know basis, it is not the journalist who is usually calling the shots. On the contrary, it is the person on the other end who sets the agenda. At a given time, the journalist buys and imbibes the agenda of his handler to such an extent that he actually believes in it and hence is prone to exploitation. Frankly, it has more to do with vanity and other mortal weaknesses than any kind of professionalism, yet professionals are mortals too. This, I agree, is our bad side; thus we can never replace the position of a well-informed political advisor. But why on earth should the politicians be totally dependent on our input? There is no gainsaying that among seasoned journalists, like in any other profession, there are intellectually deep individuals who have ideas that can be highly useful in any policy debate. But, like in any other field, not everyone is so gifted. And the recent expansion in the media space of the country has brought quite a few half-informed quacks to the fore. This of course includes a spin-doctor, nay the doctor of sleaze, who accepted and then deserted a highly lucrative post from the government and since then has turned against it. But that is just another queer fact of our lives that we ignore such a distinct case of opportunism and still worship the opportunist. We know that there is absolutely no reason for the politicians to blindly follow our prescriptions. But they do, because they do not want to invest in the institutions within their parties where proper research is done. A politician would hence watch a popular talk show one night and, taking a cue, would wake up with an angry rant on any particular issue. But this distinct dilemma lies with the opposition groups only, especially because they do not have enough information owing to the lack of steady homework by the shadow government and are seen hardly taking any advantage of the committee system of parliament with the exception of extracting maximum political mileage. Of course it does not mean that the media should be ignored altogether. In better-informed societies, media input is also included in the final decisions, but that is through a system of weightage and not done blindly. The government’s dilemma is usually altogether different. Thanks to its lack of homework, the government is usually totally dependent on the civil, military and of course judicial bureaucracy. While the latter is consulted only occasionally, the former two provide consistent input to the government. Since bureaucracy is usually wary of the free media, the rulers inherit this prejudice without much resistance. Where the bureaucracy is shunned, its place is usually occupied not by the technocrat advisors but the voluminous coterie of sycophants. The newborn political process is hence nipped in the bud. The extent to which bureaucrats and sycophants set the mediocre agenda in the Islamic republic is obnoxious. Even in the current political, constitutional and energy crises and even on the issues of relations with the country’s neighbours, these influences are quite evident. So, is there any way out? Or are we destined only to pick up pieces from the wreckage of our dreams and promises of democracy? I think there is a way. We have to go back to the basics. Every person in this country has to ask him/herself, what are the responsibilities of his/her profession? If everyone can figure that out and there are even a few sane individuals alive, things can improve. For instance, the primary function of the opposition is not to throw the government out but to correct its course through public exposure whenever there is a mistake and, meanwhile, prepare itself for its turn. Likewise, the task of the government is not merely to struggle for survival but to offer relief to the people. The media, defence establishment and the judiciary, the big three currently being blamed for collusion, also have their well-defined roles. If we cannot go back to the basics, we are in for an absolute catastrophe because we have already been surrounded by the vultures. And in democracy lies our only survival.
The column first appeared in Daily Times dated Feb 18, 2010. Click here to read the original.

“The truth will set you free,” says Jesus in John 8:32. That is true. But truth is often presented as a thing ridiculously simple; something that is indivisible or that which is easily attainable. Yet such a perspective precludes the possibility of half-truths. Then where does the proverbial blind men’s elephant go? Please do not jump the gun and take me for a deconstructionist or postmodernist. I am not. It is just that the way people treat the fascinating compounded dimensions of truth in an obnoxiously simplistic fashion is nothing short of blasphemy to me.

In terms of science too there are umpteen paradoxes involved. One deliciously radical idea of quantum physics is called the Many-worlds hypothesis. In 1954, Hugh Everett III, a doctoral student at Princeton University, introduced the idea of parallel universes where every time we are faced with a fork on the road and we take one turn, the other branches off into an alternative reality. He was trying to explain the erratic behaviour of quantum matter. Of course in our finite view of the universe this sounds like a queer joke but if we were to consider our reality as a three-dimensional software, there is no dearth of space for such an expansion. In this matrix of multiverse, how would you then fit our own limited perception of truth, for everything untrue in your own universe could be true in one alternative universe or another. Undoubtedly this brings the near consensual monotheistic masonry of endism crashing down. But that is merely a side effect. The real effect of this hypothesis is the amount of humour it has generated in the science fiction and fantasy genre.

I am not sure how this quantum interpretation can be proved through hardcore evidence on a macro scale but if it could be, it would drive a dagger into the hearts of many a religious myth. But it is not as if there is no religion that endorses such a view. Certain dialects of ancient faiths do that and so do many esoteric cultures, including a few secret societies. For instance, there is the concept of planes of existence in esoteric cosmology. Even in Islam and other monotheistic faiths there is the concept of an afterlife, which for sure is considered a parallel reality. The day humanity proves this hypothesis, which at least in terms of physics and mathematics is accorded nodding approval and perhaps creates a means of dimension jumps, we will perhaps reach the solid fact of God’s existence or the lack of it. Already many scientists including Gleason, Hartle, De Witt, Graham and finally Deutsch have brought it to the new century and the new millennium.

In our mundane reality too somehow it seems there are multiple universes. If you were to compare the social realities of modern day Tokyo and New York to the technological infrastructure present in the distant nooks of Pakistani tribal areas and Afghanistan, you would instantly understand what I mean. And so can you understand the naked truth of poverty vis-à-vis the advanced nations of the world. And of course you can understand why none of the Pakistani universities is likely to produce even one Everett in the near future. So the illustrations go on and on.

Coming back to the multi-dimensional nature of truth we have several examples of commonplace paradoxes. For example, when Pervez Musharraf accorded full pardon to AQ Khan after his televised confession, he called him a hero and a disgrace at the same time. The questioners kept marvelling at the irony. How could a country’s national hero be a criminal? Perhaps the name of Mordechai Vanunu is forgotten. But then what will you make of the recent controversy in which Shahid Afridi, our hero of the T20 World Cup, is seen offering his teeth to every bowler for the sake of ball tampering? Perhaps that good old sportsman spirit in professionals is being replaced with the mad desire to win. The onus has shifted from good old sporting fun to matters like national pride and the glory and rewards of a win. Means of course then are not important. Ends would justify the means.

These paradoxes and the different shades of truth are not that much visible in two-dimensional Pakistan. Two-dimensional as in a map where no depth — cultural or intellectual — is found. Two dimensional also in terms of our rigid belief in black and white, good and evil: what we do is good, what others do is evil. Our mental and imaginary geography has created two parallel though clashing universes within our very country where those who share our worldview are angels of virtue, and those who do not are the devil’s apprentices.

Consequently, I have come across people who think that the Taliban have a better idea of our faith and should be proclaimed our saviours even when they kill us. And then there are those who think that the American predator attacks are a pretty neat idea and hence should be welcomed. Those who do not embrace either of the two perspectives are neither in the kingdom of heaven nor in the world of darkness but consigned to the dustbin of an abyss. I know I am neither here nor there, that I cannot subscribe to the worldview of extremists even if I tried to and my life depended on it. Similarly, while being a thorough liberal I love my country and like Ataturk I am averse to any foreign meddling in matters of my nation.

This terrible polarisation was brought home once again by Dr Aafia Siddiqui’s controversy. While most of the people I came across expressed their concern for the dear doctor’s well being, there still are people who think that punishing her was a good idea. When we cannot manage to produce evidence, we start dissembling. And that is exactly what has been done by the US authorities while building the case against her. If the American government and agencies had no idea about her whereabouts before 2008, why was her name included in the published FBI list of wanted terrorists just before her disappearance? And if she was a wanted terrorist, why were these charges not pressed against her in court? I know that immediately after the jury found her guilty she threw a tantrum and dragged Israel into the matter without any context. Many will try to prove her a member of a terror outfit through this, but to me it shows her unstable mental state caused by prolonged torture. I wish there was more information available from the government of Pakistan and the Musharraf regime. I also think such instances are caused by the failure of world nations to establish a code to try non-state actors on the pattern of the Geneva Convention. The London Conference too was a woeful waste of resources. Truth then is no longer needed.

The column first appeared in Daily Times dated February 11, 2010.  Click here for to see the original.

Bonds are important. In Philip Pullman’s legendry trilogy His Dark Materials, the bankers of Cittàgazze invent a knife that, among other things, can cut through the bonds of nature to such an extent that they manage to create windows between parallel universes. In ‘Avatar’, on planet Pandora every living thing can be connected to through a plug-like interface called sahilu or the bond. Every other living being can connect through this bond and upload or download thoughts. Traditionally, our planet also had rather subtle bonds between nature and humanity, and of course between individual human beings. But these bonds are coming under duress with changing time and technology. The Pakistani state is given to a unique curse — that of picking its worst enemies and then sleeping with them. Of course it owes its very foundations to the ideational and intellectual contradictions that lead us to the precipice. But this knack of sleeping with the enemy is slightly more than what goes on between Julia Roberts and Patrick Bergin in the movie of the same title. One, it is not a once in a lifetime ordeal but a permanent feature of the Islamic republic. Two, it is not accidental but a matter of free will. Just consider this. We mentored the jihad brigade in Afghanistan against the Soviets and once the threat receded they turned against the country. Then we introduced the Taliban and now they are going for our necks. What is this curse and why on earth do we fail to end it? The problem, dear readers, lies with the idea of Pakistan. In the 21st century we are still trying to justify our existence ideologically not practically. The very fact of existence and survival is neither here nor there, and instead of a Pakistani dream we need an ideology to keep moving. This revolting curse has polarised this country to such an extent that we always take a maximalist position even on matters of common sense. It seems important to revisit the premise of engaging the Taliban through a dialogue because everyone from the London conference to the Islamic republic seems obsessed with it. Before we do that it will be useful to establish that excess of everything is bad, the extreme in any case is usually counterproductive and two wrongs never make a right. The Taliban were a bad idea when they were conceived and nothing has changed since then. This terrible blend of politics, perversion of Islamic teachings and medieval tribalism can only promise catastrophe. For one it entangles faith into the matters of state. The resulting system carries in its heart a distinct vulnerability to pan-Islamism, which is easily exploited by terror groups like al Qaeda. If you think any person who has been associated with this distinct ideology can change then you are in for a rude shock. Those who fall victim to this malady can never recover. This is also the carnal sin of our state to think that someone believing in this ideology can ever be loyal to the Pakistani cause. What Emile Durkheim once called familism is another outcome of this obnoxious political culture. Tribalism thrives on blood bonds and by endorsing the outdated tribal cultural values, such a political dispensation makes evolution impossible. If you have ever visited Kabul during the Taliban rule you will recollect the way dish antennas were used only for decoration. This ancient marriage of Salafism and tribalism also does not augur well for the minorities of the given country. You will recall the fate of the Buddha statues and also the discriminatory badges that the minority groups were asked to wear in those benighted times. Since the tribal and Taliban values give importance to lynch law, no modern justice system can evolve out of their sway. And I do not even need to remind you of the Taliban’s attitude towards women. Another problem with the Taliban ideology is that it is contagious. Anyone who interfaces with a Talib has chances of succumbing to his ideology. Let us now imagine that during the negotiations with the Taliban, a group shows readiness to surrender and take part in the political system. Will there ever be any guarantee that such a group will be honest in the armistice and will not try to destroy the system from within? I think not. After nine years of battling militancy, this is one hell of a risk. Pakistan has witnessed such a scenario already when in Swat we tried to mend fences with the local Taliban. It turned out to be another Taliban manoeuvre to fortify their position. Let us now focus on Pakistan’s plight. Somehow our establishment does not recognise the threat posed by the Taliban worldview. Now that our country has already fought them for nine years and in doing so risked its own existence, will our ‘sins’ ever be forgiven? I think not. You can already see the damage done to our own defence establishment by the Taliban. Those who advocate negotiating with the Taliban have actually been brainwashed by them and are still labouring under the delusion that somehow Pakistan can control Kabul through such groups. The only way Pakistan can play a role in today’s Afghanistan is by winning the hearts of the Afghan people and not trying to impose rogues on them. Inclusion of the Taliban in the current administration will only be a ticking time bomb and will destroy the countries on both sides of the Durand Line. What else can we do then? It is clear that warfare is not solving everything. The Taliban are growing and the neo-conservatives in the US are painting a doom and gloom scenario, especially because in the current situation they cannot make any capital — either political or financial — out of Afghanistan. They now want the Obama administration to commit a final and irredeemable mistake in Afghanistan so that he becomes totally marginalised. What should be done if dialogue with the Taliban is not a good idea and war does not seem to be achieving anything substantial? If war is not succeeding we should reflect on the nature of the war, not its rationale. A lot of lip service is paid to winning hearts and minds but has anything substantial been done? Not to my knowledge. In the name of winning hearts and minds what we have witnessed is lucrative contracts being awarded to multinationals. Anything that thrives on greed cannot solve the deep problems of a war-torn country like Afghanistan. If you are still not convinced then you need to read Jeremy Scahill’s Blackwater. Propaganda is an effectual part of warfare and so is development. If appropriate means are employed there is absolutely no reason that the likes of the Taliban can be successful. Instead of bonding with the Taliban, what we need is to build bonds with the common man on the street. If that cannot be done, then Afghanistan, Pakistan or even the US will never be safe again.

The column first appeared in Daily Times dated February 4, 2010. Click here to visit the original.

“The president in particular is very much a figurehead – he wields no real power whatsoever. He is apparently chosen by the government, but the qualities he is required to display are not those of leadership but those of finely judged outrage. For this reason the President is always a controversial choice, always an infuriating but fascinating character. His job is not to wield power but to draw attention away from it.”

These insightful lines were neither written by any Pakistani author nor about any Pakistani president. They are taken out of Douglas Adams’ Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, particularly where the chores of the Galactic President are described. Doesn’t it fit our present case though?

When lawyers take to the street, regardless of their success or failure, President Zardari must be wondering what he has gotten himself into. Governing a wild and erratic state like the Islamic republic is never easy. And whenever a democratic government takes over, it becomes impossible to rule; yet those undeserving civilians never learn a lesson. Of course if any civilian or democrat needs to learn a lesson it is the successive leaders of the PPP for they have repeatedly and plainly been told that they are no more needed in power. But somehow they do not understand. Consequently, whenever the PPP is in power with a weak mandate, it is deprived of all executive power. The defence establishment always remains sceptical of its defence and foreign policies, the judiciary tries its best to restrain its executive choices and the opposition dubs it as a government of traitors. I hope you remember Sahabzada Yaqub Khan as the foreign minister in Benazir Bhutto’s first government.

Of course the PPP government cannot escape the blame altogether. In the absence of support from the traditional establishment it is confused whether to fulfil populist promises or follow the donors’ stringent policies. When it attempts populism, it is often dubbed as corrupt and when it follows the latter, it is labelled inept and is seen as signing its own death warrant.

In the absence of the traditional Bhutto charisma, the current democratic dispensation is faring poorly. There is no gainsaying that the country is facing its worst energy, inflation, food and law and order crises to date. There is no point in saying that these crises are not of this government’s making, for nobody is ready to listen. The government’s crisis of leadership is now transforming into a crisis of legitimacy and the Supreme Court’s verdict on the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) and the general mood has placed a big question mark next to the president’s official title. It seems that a defiant judiciary will certainly challenge his eligibility and may even eventually go to the extent of cancelling his election to the post. This is something unusual for a court that even during the height of its confrontation with the Musharraf regime, allowed his re-election to take place, stopping merely the notification. It is clear today that both the army and the judiciary are weary of any government interference in their domains, particularly in the appointment of new judges and army chief, hence they may use the implementation of the verdict as a bargaining chip. But even when these dictates are followed, there is simply no guarantee that the logical end will not come to pass soon.

So, today President Zardari faces a difficult decision. Follow the dictates of the verdict and by doing so sign his own discharge orders or to embark on a confrontationist path and bring the entire house and perhaps the system down with him. This is indeed a terrible set of choices. How did this day ever come to pass? Of course there is some truth in the president’s suspicions of a large scale conspiracy, but he should admit his own follies too. When his party came into power it was under curious pressures not to reinstate the deposed judges or to sack Pervez Musharraf. Of course the issue of the NRO should also have been among his concerns, but that concern did not pay off as the judiciary was restored, which finally struck down the Ordinance. In those difficult days he clustered around him a coterie of advisors whose only job was to defend him and while doing so alienate many of his allies. Then promises were made without taking into cognisance the difficulty of the circumstances or the consequences of a breach of promise. The government is not very popular right now and the legal crisis of legitimacy is a direct reflection of the sentiment on the street. But while the government’s popularity may return as it overcomes the usual mid-term blues, the president may not be so lucky unless the situation changes dramatically.

Let us face it. Asif Ali Zardari’s power does not flow from his presidential post but from his party office. Ideally he should have either followed the example of Sonia Gandhi and led the system from without, or followed the examples of Zulfikar and Benazir Bhutto and led as the premier from within. But to be fair he assumed the presidential title only due to political compulsions.

In my view it was a great mistake on the part of the PPP leadership to leave Amin Fahim as a fully empowered regent in its absence. The PML-N quickly recognised its similar mistake and hence poor Javed Hashmi had to spend several years in prison for distributing a letter sent to Fauzia Wahab. In Benazir’s absence from the country, curious connections developed between the party’s alternative leadership and the establishment to the extent that the latter felt Benazir Bhutto expendable. The party was thus threatening to melt down when Zardari assumed the role of the party chief. To consolidate his position he was left with no choice but to become the president. Again in hindsight, accepting the NRO in any form short of parliamentary legislation was another grave error.

Yet the confluence of difficult circumstances and choices has brought the system to the brink. But what can the president do now to save the day? If there was a grand narrative forcing him to act as the bad cop, he should realise it has compromised his public image and should hence change. It is time to make popular choices. Similarly, he needs to recognise the thin line between genuine threats and only perceived fears. Despite immunity, the president’s post is under threat; there is no need to interpret this as a threat to his life. Nor should he make it a matter of life or death for his party. If he assumes a conciliatory posture it will not be misinterpreted as a sign of weakness but a popular sacrifice to save the system.

What would I have done if I were in a similar situation? I would have realised that this NRO business was at the heart of all my compromises and loss of public face. I would have asked the embattled ministers to step down, gone on television to address the nation and announced my decision to stand aside to allow the law to take its due course. A well designed speech would have appealed to the voter and would have reversed the flow of pressure. If President Zardari loses one official title and saves the system, his popularity is bound to grow, and while doing so he may also free his representative government of all compromises. Do you think if the establishment has failed to indict him in court, will it succeed under his own government? And since the chairman senate is his trusted lieutenant bound to act as a caretaker president, the president has only to gain from such a tactical surrender. It leaves him free to re-enter direct politics in a future term as the prime ministerial candidate with a clean slate. Right now it is time to strengthen democracy, especially now that his position as the party chief is far more comfortable than in the past.

This article first appeared in the Jan 28 edition of Daily Times. Click here to visit the original.

Poverty is a killer. Before killing you it kills your social senses. It leaves you alone to live with your basest instincts and often waylays any sense of purpose in life. I know there are many who have managed to escape the negative influences of poverty despite being dirt poor. But you should admire their courage and resolution rather than misunderstanding poverty. While everyone knows these basic facts of life, no one seriously does anything to curb this menace. Consequently, despite repeated promises of the rulers, the poverty rate in the Islamic republic is always rising.

Even though I do not believe in many conspiracy theories I am often left to wonder why the military rulers of this country ever fail to alleviate poverty here, especially because during their reign dollars keep pouring in from everywhere. Searching for the elusive answer I am often seized by paranoia. Could it be a plot? Are we given money only on the sole condition that it will never be invested in alleviating poverty?

Unfortunately John Perkins’ book, Confession of an Economic Hit Man, does not help to root out this paranoia. It tells us a grim tale of deceit in which poor countries are robbed of their resources and future by the economic hit men (EHMs). Every time I visit Islamabad I come across someone who vociferously quotes the contents of the book to me. Perkins goes to the extent of contending that the leaders of Ecuador, President Jaime Roldós Aguilera and Panama, General Omar Torrijos, were assassinated by US agents for opposing the interests of the owners of their countries’ foreign debt. If Pakistan was ever hit by such designs there is insufficient data to substantiate such occurrence. All I know is that the first prime minister of this country was shot in public and another hanged by his own army and judiciary.

But there is more. Is it not surprising that during the reign of the dictators the country is inundated with foreign aid and funds that are not even audited? However, when a democratic set up emerges, all friends of Pakistan vanish without a trace and the country’s only option remains to approach the International Monetary Fund (IMF). When the generals are holding public office, we witness a period of economic calm. The moment they leave office we realise how fake that sense of calm was. The country is again plunged into financial chaos. Again while we take special delight in calling politicians corrupt, the unexplained wealth of the sons of generalissimos never captures our attention. Consequently, when the civilian rulers approach the country’s friends all over the world for assistance, they are turned down and declared untrustworthy, inept and often corrupt. The only solace comes from the much-feared IMF. The IMF’s gruelling conditions, which are apparently meant to improve the country’s infrastructure, leave the country’s poor poorer still. The civilian government succeeding the dictators (in the last three cases led by the People’s Party) as a result grows unpopular and is finally forced out of power.

An interesting case in this context is that of Pervez Musharraf’s rule. For a little short of nine years Musharraf was treated by the West as the country’s sole spokesman. We were repeatedly told how big investors are coming to Pakistan with their humungous projects. But curiously, no big industrial units were installed in the country. What we witnessed was an obsession with the stock market, property development, introducing new cellular companies and some attempts at establishing call centres. If the country was so obsessed with the cellular companies, why did we not see a boom in the cellular phone sets manufacturing? Likewise, we did not invest in car manufacturing yet banks were roped into leasing out cars. This offer brought an average household under debt and cluttered the roads of the metropolis too. And for someone who claimed to be futuristic and rational in outlook, no mass transit system was introduced in any of the country’s metropolitan centres.

And then enters the democratic change. The moving spirit of the campaign against the dictatorial regime was extinguished with the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. A divided house emerged with Asif Ali Zardari as the ultimate decision maker. There were already ample allegations against Mr Zardari, who took decisions in government formation gingerly. The new government was formed under Yousuf Raza Gilani in the presence of Pervez Musharraf. All of a sudden the country was left with little financial breathing space and even the experienced hands from Musharraf’s rule did not offer any help. The new government, which had arrived in power raising populist slogans, was forced to shoot itself in the foot by accepting the IMF’s prescription. Later, Musharraf was shown the door and Zardari assumed the post of the president. I believe that his initial attempt at staying out of power was motivated by his desire to keep the stigma attached to him away from the government, yet it proved to be of no use. Even when the new government managed to obtain American assistance in the shape of the Kerry-Lugar bill, which offered an unprecedented amount to a democratic set up, the right-wingers and Musharraf’s supporters were the first to raise a hue and cry.

The most prominent feature of the current set up is the never ending energy crisis. First we witnessed the repeated and prolonged power outages, and then emerged the natural gas shortage. While castigating the present government no one tries to relent and reflect that a huge dent to our natural resources was caused by the leasing out of CNG-fitted cars by the previous regime, nor its failure to invest substantially in the power generation sector.

Clueless, the new government tried to introduce rental power plants (RPPs). And once again we did smell a rat. The issue was referred to foreign auditors and the leaked audit report from the Asian Development Bank (ADB) seems to discourage the venture. We are told that while the RPPs would end load shedding in one year, without them the government can bridge the power gap in two years. So dear readers, we are told that instead of an instant solution, or waiting for one year, we should suffer for another two years. What happens to businesses here, how we all suffer and how demoralised society feels is none of their damned business.

I am seriously worried today. I believe that our economy is showing all signs peculiar to a dying state. And no wonder intellectuals around the world are already discussing my country in the past tense. What happens to the country’s nuclear arsenal is everyone’s concern but what happens to 180 million citizens of this country is no one’s business. And that is why I believe our western benefactors do not want democratic governments in Pakistan. Despite all lip service paid to the democratic cause, we are repeatedly forced towards the precipice. Now do you want me not to believe in any conspiracy theories and stop reading Perkins’ new book?
(The above column first appeared in Daily Times dated Jan 21, 2010. Click here to visit the original.)

Chess is played in more than one ways. Even the world of Harry Potter had a wizard’s chess. I have never been a master at the game but at a very young age I did manage to beat several of our elder relations and family friends. I can of course glaring situation of check-mate when it occurs even anywhere other than the chessboard. Politics in this country is also played as the game of chess, often as wizard’s chess where the loser pieces have to lose their heads. The assassination of Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto was a tragic reality of this chess-board.
The NRO’s detailed verdict that was released yesterday shows that the President has been badly check-mated. For someone who has seen PPP as a beacon of hope in the Islamic republic and advocated vociferously in support of the present government it is very painful for me to concede this fact but there is no point crying over the spilled milk. I am sure the President also understands as much.  Where my and his perception may differ is that he considers it a wizard chess board, whereas I think it is an average everyday chessboard. In the usual game the player survives to try  another day.
Why on earth did this moment ever come to pass? It is one of the strange situations where the losing side has brought  this day on itself. I am getting more and more convinced of the wisdom of the prime minister who had repeatedly advised against the displacement of the Punjab govt and in the support of the reinstatement of the deposed judiciary. Maybe the President’s accepting his office was also a mistake. But I wouldn’t know that. The government’s recent decisions regarding the provincial judiciary following the NRO verdict and the president’s Lahore yatra were seen as the final act of war.
I am not going to discuss the details of the government’s stumbles and tumbles here. I will spare it for a column. In Lahore High Court’s case I believe it was right to assert itself. Yet it is a characteristic weakness of the current situation that the government after posing belligerent for a while has to surrender. The ultimate reason is the president and a segment of the cabinet’s vulnerability on the NRO issue. Now it seems that the president’s advisors who have brought this day upon him are lining up to cajole him into a confrontational pose.  Since after a while of chaos the government will have to surrender and re enact a Musharraf like situation and concessions made especially in that scenario would be catastrophic for Pakistan. So time is opportune for the government to face the reality. It can save the government and the President after installing a liberal president can face the courts, get a reprieve and finally re-enter direct politics in a future set up. Meanwhile a PPP government. I believe situation is not as dire as the president suspects and the threat to his presidency is not the threat to his life. He can save the day by compromising and not sacrificing his post for the time being. People often forget that in such an eventuality no one other than Farooq Naik would be president. This is a card that the president has played well. He should look towards the future. He is not Musharraf and there is no need to act like one. For the sake of democracy he has to choose quickly and all those who have forced him into a corner will regret later. Any harm to his person will be considered a direct assault on democracy. If democracy weakens today the right wing get stronger and stronger, and that to me is an unmitigated disaster. (To be updated later. Keep checking this space for more.)

“Our only security lies in pre-emptive attack. We will fight terror with terror.” These are not George Bush’s words; they are uttered by Colonel Miles Quaritch in ‘Avatar’, the record breaking Hollywood flick, when he is to unleash the might of “shock and awe” against the Na’vi people of the planet Pandora. The story begins with the typical motive behind any war and colonisation: greed. I will not spoil the story for you. Go watch this visual treat in the theatres. However, I must confess that while watching the movie I was touched by the subtle similarities between its language and our current war blues. I am thus pretty sure that James Cameron was not thinking merely of an imaginary planet and an imaginary humanoid race when he wrote the script.
Just a few days back John McCain was in the country with Lieberman and company. Before his arrival all our leaders were repeatedly calling for an end to the repeated predator attacks in Pakistani territories. McCain, however, chose to pre-empt such demands by calling the predator assaults the most effective weapon in the war on terror. While hearing this I wondered would he be happy to use the very technology and tactics to fight terror and crime in his homeland too? I am sure not. The most successful tool is beneficial only against the humanoids and the cultural other, not the civilised parts of the world.
Let us face it. War is an ugly business. Killing fellow humans takes a special state of mind and indifference. But we grit our teeth and go along when we know that the ones being killed would have happily killed us all. You will never find me questioning the rationale of fighting the terrorists. However, methods do matter. Even in wars as a general rule we do not kill non-combatants, the sick, the elderly, women and children. But at times it seems that the world’s most powerful army has never managed to grow out of the cowboy culture.
Recently we witnessed two extreme versions concerning the so-called drone attacks. The Taliban apologists weave a tall tale of betrayal and vendetta where the survivors of such attacks are maddened by grief and decide to blow themselves up along with you and me through suicide attacks to avenge their dead. In response another class of arguments is emerging, which actually tries to justify the predator manoeuvres with the accusations of gross generalisation and fabrication. I daresay both are wrong. While the first class is consciously trying to misguide everyone with its own ulterior motives, the latter is not doing any service either. And I challenge both versions not on the basis of any complicated set of logic but through pure common sense.
Let us start with the version advanced by the Taliban apologists. The victims of trauma usually suffer from a paralysing sense of alienation and hence take considerable time to regain their bearings. They flinch even at minute noises and often lose their head completely. This is especially true of the age group that is usually alleged to be involved in suicide attacks. Trust me I have seen trauma patients of that age and I know how they behave. Then if this perspective was to be accepted, a resounding majority of the suicide attackers should have come from the tribal areas. But clearly that is not the case. It is far easier to indoctrinate an abducted child than to manipulate anyone who has endured such tragedy recently. Should we then forget that even before the drone attacks the suicide bombers were still in existence? This has more to do with the manipulation of mind than with any suffering caused by a hostile attack.
The Taliban apologists then use this tall tale to manufacture a semblance of empathy if not sympathy for the terrorists and go on to advocate capitulation through a policy of engagement and negotiations. We have seen the fruits of a similar exercise in Swat already. It is important to understand that negotiating with the terrorists is a poor policy option and if society still deems it prudent to hold dialogue with such elements, it has better means of doing so than engaging the political, administrative or the state apparatus, for every terrorist has parents, siblings and friends to dissuade them. If that fails, politics has no means to overcome the failure. Psy-ops and propaganda then perhaps remain the last chance for any non-violent strategy.
Now let us turn to the second perception. I have absolutely no doubt that in the current fog of war and general chaos the predator attacks often manage to hit many a roguish element. But remember that no matter how effective their precision guidance systems are, the missiles fired from these predators have absolutely no gift of surgically removing one terrorist safe house from among a dozen civilian residences in a settlement. The battle-hardened terrorists seem to have learnt enough lessons, thus taking extra pains to live in civilian communities. You cannot kill any civilian only because he comes in your way. The life of each innocent citizen is precious and should be protected against both the terrorists and the anti-terror operations.
It is true that like everyone else I do not have any specific facts to substantiate this argument. But that is not because of lack of trying. There are so many filters in the war-affected areas that gathering verifiable data is practically impossible. If you recall, before his assassination, late journalist Hayatullah Khan was reporting among other things the repeated ground violations of our territorial boundary by the US forces. How many of such reports have made it to the popular press since then? You need not be a great social or rocket scientist to understand that a missile attack does cause casualties and it lacks any mechanism to tell the difference between the guilty and the innocent. Even if you call the civilian casualties ‘collateral damage’, you cannot deny that our precious lives are lost and unimaginable displacement does occur. Each life lost to the terrorists or foreign assaults proves the failure of the state to protect its citizens.
Personally I am not fussed about the word ‘sovereignty’. It is an exceedingly irrelevant and incoherent term in the emerging world scenario, especially in the dynamics of modern war. Even a proud nation like the British forgot the term during World War II when it sought US help in defeating the enemy. However, I cannot defend the deaths of innocent civilians.
It is my firm belief that while it is absolutely imperative to fight the terrorists and the insurgents, I do believe that the constants of a characteristic counter-insurgency and counter-terrorism operation are not visible on either side of the border. We need to have smart operations in which no civilian is killed, not an indiscriminate shelling, bombing or missile campaign from a distance or an altitude, but hot pursuits and face to face combat. And this cannot be done by any of the foreign forces. I know that it is a widely held belief in the West that there are some Taliban and al Qaeda sympathisers within our security and intelligence establishments, hence we are unfit to fight these elements, but in the absence of any effective counter-intelligence activity in the region, you cannot say for sure if such elements have not infiltrated the US and allied intelligence quarters too. Closer cooperation, transfer of cutting edge counter-insurgency technology and improved intelligence are the crucial things lacking in the strategy right now. The propaganda part is also missing in the entire exercise. I will write some other time on how the war can be won using these elements and how the trust deficit can be abolished. However, what concerns me is that the attacks as they are conducted right now and the ambiguity surrounding their origin should end. As they are being carried out right now, these predator attacks, apart from causing human suffering in the region, are also generating a political backlash. McCain, I believe, is wrong. Not the predator attacks, but Pakistan is the most useful asset in the war against terrorists. The sooner this is understood the better it is, especially in order to escape the fate of the colonisers of planet Pandora.

(The column first appeared in Daily Times dated January 14, 2010. Click here to visit the original.)