Farrukh Khan Pitafi's Official Website

My countrymen and some foreign friends seem to have developed the new hobby of conducting pint-size researches on the assassination of Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto. Even before the UN report on her assassination — which mercifully did some justice to the scope of the tragedy — a book had appeared on the very subject. I have not read it and therefore cannot comment on it but I have been through the UN report. Interestingly, before the inquiry was commissioned, our foreign office and, as usual, our establishment were absolutely opposed to the idea. It was as if the UN Commission would end up opening our nuclear installations or other secret issues. That is exactly why the terms of reference of the study were restricted. And today the very same ‘Platos’ are questioning its rationale. The UN report, to me, has managed to provide a general framework, between the lines pinning blame on the facilitators of the crime. But apart from that, an article has appeared recently, penned by Christina Lamb, the journalist who in the wake of 9/11, allegedly tried to book a ticket and travel from Pakistan in the name of Osama bin Laden and, by doing so, risked the invasion of our country. In her longish piece, ‘Who murdered Benazir Bhutto?’ she has tried to find answers. While she has collected quite a few intriguing points that could lead to a better understanding of the matter, at some places she has displayed an eerie lack of responsibility. For instance, she has quoted the UN report out of context at least once. The Commission members, she writes, were “mystified by the efforts of certain high-ranking government authorities to obstruct access”. The quoted sentence however does not end here. The actual sentence is: “The Commission was mystified, however, by the efforts of certain high-ranking government officials to obstruct access to Pakistani military and intelligence sources, as revealed in their public declarations.” You may ask what difference does that make. Well, a hell of a lot of difference sirs! Immediately after the quote, she rushes on to her experience with the police. This implies that there was general obstruction, by the government and not the military authorities, whose reluctance would at least be understandable. Through this she builds a case that portrays the government as being hesitant in investigating owing to some of its own ulterior motives. And finally, where the article ends, you find the president being discreetly blamed for the tragedy. Do not take these funny points lightly. These points can later be used to repeat what has been done in the past: blaming the victim. When Benazir Bhutto first came to power, for the sake of democracy, through a compromise and did not open an investigation into her father’s murder, she was quickly dubbed as a sell-out. When her government could not probe into the murders of her two brothers, she was directly or indirectly blamed for their assassination. When she was attacked at Karsaz, certain Punjabi politicians blamed her for masterminding the assault on her own life. Now when she is no more with us, is it not natural to blame the victim again and rope in her own family? But none of these Platos will ever tell you that after Zulfi Bhutto, every time the PPP came into power, it was through a million compromises that made governance and such investigations absolutely impossible. While some may call it a love for power, given the mortality rate, I insist that it was done for the love of the people and democracy. Might I remind you that when, after her assassination, this country was burning and certain Punjabi politicians, then in the government, were playing the ethnic card by setting up camps for Punjabis from Sindh, it was this president who stepped in with the promise of “Pakistan khappay” (Pakistan will flourish). People say that since he is now in power and heading his party, he is the sole beneficiary of her slaying. How unfortunate! No one realises why he assumed the party leadership and the presidency in the first place. Or even the fact that he is the first president who, from a point of strength, gave up powers vested in him through the 17th Amendment. Why would they? They hate the PPP and they hate the Bhutto legacy. The biggest strategic mistake, in my humble opinion, ever committed by Benazir Bhutto was to leave a fully empowered regent in Pakistan in her absence. In her absence, Makhdoom Amin Fahim developed quite cordial relations with the dictator of the time. While the Makhdoom of Hala cannot be blamed for this, the establishment started dreaming of a PPP free of the name of the Bhuttos. A similar mistake was committed by Nawaz Sharif, but upon serious reflection it was corrected when Makhdoom Javed Hashmi volunteered to be interned. Had Zardari not stepped in, the establishment’s plan seemed to have been the hijacking of the party by using the polite and unassuming regent as a rubber stamp. Sometime in the future you would have found Pervez Musharraf heading the party and all its sponsored factions! This plan was foiled but still the presence of the dictator meant that disgruntled segments would continue to be sponsored by him. That was when Zardari took over as the president too. Now that the party’s discipline has been restored, he did not show any reluctance in giving up his powers. I am not an expert on forensics, nor am I a spook. Instead of any rocket science, I employ common sense. Common sense says that the establishment, always weary of the Bhutto name, was bound to gain from the assassination. I would have blamed the Taliban directly, given my firm stance against them, but it is my belief that only someone with cutting edge surveillance technology could have planned her assassination, for only he would have known that Benazir Bhutto had different plans than that of the dictator and his western backers. That reduces our list of potential plotting culprits to two: The US intelligence agencies and our very own establishment. The latter has acquired the said technology for the sake of fighting the war on terror. Only these two could read her e-mails and listen to her conversations. But blaming US intelligence agencies is not akin to blaming the US or its people. We do remember that the neo-conservatives in those days were desperate for another Republican win and, as part of their war on terror strategy, they had thrown their weight behind the dictator. Their weariness with Benazir was equally understandable. Do not forget that the US government, since Ayubian times, is considered an inextricable part of our own establishment. While I seriously doubt that any of these culprits, even if proven guilty, can be brought to justice, at least we can stop blaming the victims for each tragedy.
The column first appeared in Daily Times dated May 6, 2010. Click here to visit the original.

Moving back to Islamabad has proved to be quite an experience. The city has grown more expensive by the day, not that it was more affordable in the past. But the most remarkable thing about it is the developmental change. Underpasses and flyovers have been built, which were only being thought of when I left. And I did not leave decades ago. Things have been built in not more than three and a half years. Another interesting feature of the city is the compartments in which it has been divided; most galling of all, of course, is the red zone. The name sounds as if we are living in Iraq.
It would not be indulging in hearsay to state that the city has stayed divided for quite some time, even if not for the sake of security. We used to say that between Sector G and F exists an invisible Durand Line, which keeps the have-nots away from the haves. But now something quite different is happening. The haves have been interned in a prison of their own devices. Fear, the mother of all compromises, has done it again.
And this is the place where the 17th Amendment was passed and has now been superseded by the 18th. This is the place where the current chief justice was deposed by a dictator who called himself the most democratic one. It was, of course, somewhere nearby that Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto was assassinated, and decades ago her father hanged by her own country’s army upon the orders of its apex court. Now this city is swarming with the political leadership of the country to mull over the solution for our electricity disaster. At least the leaders sound committed today. But is there any real solution in the offing? I do not doubt that the issue of the electricity shortage, consequently the power outages, is a political problem too. I will come to the political part later. But primarily it is a technical matter. Only a committee comprising true professionals can do justice to it. All that the politicians can do is issue accurate data on the state of affairs concerning the electricity issue. The circular debt, the actual shortfall, the real installed capacity, the major bottlenecks, the best options available and the impact of international inflationary pressures and IMF terms on power generation, all can be published on the internet and in the papers within a day or two.
Once that is done, a convention can be called of all of the country’s leading electrical, nuclear and other relevant engineers. For even better measure, leading economists can be called in too. All can sit together to develop a set of proposals that the politicians can later implement. Otherwise, politicians sitting together in airconditioned rooms and mulling over the proposals submitted by WAPDA bureaucrats can hardly solve anything. If it at all could, it would have helped solve quite a lot already.
I know a lot is being said about conservation. We are told not to marry after dark, not to keep our shops open after that and make Saturdays a holiday as well. But with due respect, these are quite foolish suggestions. The only hope of a failing economy’s recovery lies in generating ample economic activity and, in a country where manufacturing industry has hardly ever flourished, functions like weddings and small businesses like shops are generating the actual activity. And now you want to shut them down. Actual conservation can come through putting an end to line losses and power theft. Why will people not steal electricity when wires hang naked on poles in front of their houses? In decent parts of the world, most of the cables are buried underground. It is an open fact that the country’s power authorities have failed miserably to modernise the power distribution system. No matter how much additional electricity you produce, it is bound to be lost in the labyrinth of this sordid system. The actual solution lies somewhere else. Why has WAPDA not improved its distribution system? Because there is no competition! How can we bring about change? By introducing competition, plain and simple. And it should not be an artificial competition. In Karachi, they did privatise KESC but still there is no competitor in terms of distribution.
Private, competing distributors certainly will initially sell electricity at more expensive rates and only the richer part of the population will buy it from them. But this will still lift pressure from the public sector, helping it to reach out to the underprivileged segments of society and perhaps also revamp its own distribution system.
Now comes the political bit. It is good that, finally, the politicians are at least showing active interest in solving this problem. Mian Shahbaz Sharif has even presented a nine-point paper on this. Many of these points are good, some brilliant. But, as I have said earlier, this country produces a good number of world-class technocrats per annum. It is time to consult them.
The prime minister should also be complimented for bringing all provincial heads and influential politicians to one table. This show of solidarity is impressive. But have you wondered why it took our politicians two years to sit together on this very critical issue? Because the country’s political culture was lacking consensus. Thanks to the 18th Amendment there is some consensus now. The government and other influentials need to work on it further.
Pakistan needs to renegotiate its terms of reference with the IMF. This was a proposal that was actually presented by Mian Nawaz Sharif. His party boasts of a man of experience who could help in this situation because he has stayed free of Pervez Musharraf’s corroding shadows. I am talking about, as you must have guessed, Ishaq Dar. While everyone is complimenting Raza Rabbani, a man I have respected regardless of the 18th Amendment, we often forget the contribution of Ishaq Dar. The amendment would not have been possible without his contribution either. He is important also because he tailored the current term’s first budget. The PML-N needs to come back to the cabinet and we all need to convince it to do so. You will see a marked difference immediately, for democratic consensus and synergy is an absolute sine qua non. The Islamabad I knew could at least accomplish this much.
The column first appeared in Daily Times dated April 22, 2010. Click here to visit the original.

Living in Pakistan is just another exploratory walk into the parochial. Indeed my countrymen are given to grand theatrics. And yet they cannot digest a single theatrical presentation showing how sad, miserable and oppressed they are. Need an example? You remember the piece I wrote on our hypocritical attitude towards arts and culture in my piece, ‘The naked truth’ (Daily Times, March 4, 2010)? Well, I was inundated with a heap of insults by livid protectors of our great conservative ethos. I had answers for them and hence knew how to survive their onslaught. But somehow the shadow of intolerance is never to leave us. Want proof? I recently learnt that the Pakistan National Council of the Arts (PNCA) is not allowing Ajoka Theatre to perform its play ‘Burqavaganza’ at the National Art Gallery. I was stunned.

I do not know how PNCA’s Director General Tauqeer Nasir perceives the play but having seen it thoroughly with a critic’s eye, I find it a refreshing satire on our glorified double standards. The burqa of course is used as a metaphor, being a hymn to the repressive regimes in the Islamic Republic. While the concept of this criticism might be new in my beloved country, there is nothing negative in it. For those who think that the devil dwells in the flesh, there is absolutely no nudity. For those who think a spoken word can shake the very moorings of our society, there is no rude word uttered. I am shocked because when I recall my childhood days, I do recollect Tauqeer Nasir acting in very serious and challenging adaptations of foreign fiction like Dostoevsky’s. A person who understands the subtleties of the art of writing can surely distinguish between a metaphor and an offence. If an artist cannot enjoy this much-needed freedom of imagination, then is there any need for a PNCA at all?

With the hope that such crude censorship practices will be abolished and the only few who are still committed to the cause of arts and culture will not be spooked, I move on to the next ladder of the discussion. When there remains no space for drama onstage, of course the study of the power elite’s antics and semantics becomes the best public pastime. And by Jove, the powerful few of the country never cease to amuse us. There certainly is no dearth of theatrics in Pakistan.

Take for instance the case of Mian Nawaz Sharif. One minute he was getting along well with the idea of constitutional reforms, the next moment he is nowhere to be seen in the great long march for popular rights. I have no intention to second-guess the motives behind Mian saab’s about-face. To his critics his party’s politics is like the example of an inept trumpet player. First it sucked and now it has blown it. However, to the believer in me, it was nothing short of a rude awakening. I have always hoped that his prolonged exile would have made him weary of any alliance with the bureaucracy of the country, no matter civil, military or judicial. But with the exception of his anger at Musharraf, nothing seems to have changed.

Politicians, we know, are among the most criticised species in this country. Mind you, it was an elected prime minister who was hanged, not any civil, military or judicial bureaucrat. And yet Mian saab, despite being a politician himself, has found allies in Qazi Anwar who has publicly called all parliamentarians smugglers, waderas and fake degree holders. Mind you, I am no fan of Jamshed Dasti; actually I have been one of his foremost critics, but the way he was treated has left a bad taste in my mouth.

Similarly, while insisting that there was no consensus on the issue of the judges’ appointment even before his u-turn, Mian saab should pause for a moment and try to develop a consensus on his latest opinion and the document he himself signed — the Charter of Democracy (CoD). What does the document say? “3(a): The recommendations for appointment of judges to superior judiciary shall be formulated through a commission, which shall comprise of the following; i. The chairman shall be a chief justice, who has never previously taken oath under the PCO.” Am I delusional or is there something missing here? Such complacency from a man during whose tenure the Supreme Court had to endure a mob attack is striking.

Let us now come to the new name of the NWFP. For 63 years our brethren in the province have lived with a strange name. Go north, then west, there you may find a frontier and the area adjacent to that is their province. Funny name, no? And now when today there is a general consensus on renaming the province, how would it sound that people sitting in Punjab object to the new name? I do not see any rocket science to the renaming process. I know many say that there are ethnicities other than the Pakhtuns in the province, hence Pakhtunkhwa is not an acceptable name. Then may I ask about the ethnic minorities in Punjab, Sindh and Balochistan? Will Mian saab be happy to rename Punjab as Punjab-Potohar-Saraikistan? I am sure not. And if there is such an impasse, the matter can always be referred to the people of the NWFP through a referendum. But even that does not seem acceptable to the Platos of the twin leagues of the country. How insensitive can you be to the people of your own country’s province? It is also argued that owing to the Pakhtunistan movement of the past, the new name may jeopardise the country’s integrity. May I try to remind you that there is a Punjab in India, a Balochistan in Iran, and a host of people speak Sindhi on the other side of the border! Names can never jeopardise the integrity of a nation; this intolerant attitude can, as is visible in the case of the creation of Bangladesh. Helpless and a believer, I can only hope that Mian saab and other powerful people will stop flogging the future and concede to popular expectations.

The column originally appeared in Daily Times dated April 1, 2010. Click here to visit the original.