Farrukh Khan Pitafi's Official Website

Rome was not built in one day. But Pakistan was. That is precisely why we Pakistanis refuse to evolve into anything more than a pack of obnoxious, ideational contradictions. But still, an effort is underway. If we have not evolved in 63 years, we can sit together and undo the negative influences of the past through conscious deliberation. Without much ado, hence, the work of the Constitutional Reforms Committee (CRC) has assumed only too critical an importance.

Even when the deadline is pushed from week to week, we know that the committee is very nearly there with its draft. Of course, the entire exercise owes its existence to that almost defunct document signed between the PPP and the PML-N leaderships, called the Charter of Democracy (CoD). I say defunct because several of its clauses have seized to exist already. And this demise is not only because of the PPP’s assumed discretions, but also because of an about-face from the PML-N.

Take, for instance, the matter of the judges’ appointments. It was decided at the time of signing the document that no chief justice who ever took oath under any Provisional Constitution Order (PCO) imposed by any military dictator would head the judicial committee for the appointment of judges. Of course, that would have meant pretty much no judge with the exception of a few oldest and perhaps a few freshest. But there the PML-N forgot its CoD pledges and has rooted for the sitting chief justice. Similarly, there is the mention of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in the document but when ghosts from the past like the Malika-e-Jazbat Saifur Rehman are back on our television screens, you can well imagine where that promise stands today.

But not everything has been compromised. In his last address to the joint session of parliament, President Zardari invited the legislators to form a committee and delete the dictator’s introduced changes from the constitution. Since then the CRC has met ad nauseam and is now closer to its goal by far.

But, while the idea might have originated in response to Musharraf’s constitutional amendments, the opportunity was seized by the CRC to correct all wrongs in the constitution. There is no gainsaying that because of repeated military coups and the changing demographic dynamics, a huge part of the 1973 Constitution has become irrelevant today. Someone essentially needed to fix these problems and hence the CRC’s working.

But before we go on to extol the true scope and contributions of the CRC, I do have a bone or two to pick with its composition. I do not doubt that codifying the law for the future is serious business. But somehow I have been amazed by the poor representation of women in this body. Is it good old male chauvinism at play or has the prospect of including women legislators in this august body never occurred to the party heads? I leave the answer to you. Let us move on to the better part of the contribution.

It is, of course, pleasant to know that within a few days, the anti-democracy components of Article 58 and several others will be abolished, but are there any means to stop them from returning? The most recommended panacea is making parliament supreme and so it should. But how can you make parliament so strong that no dictator can try to bring it down? By making the forces that have been responsible for the repeated demise of democracy answerable to parliament. Which forces are those? Civil, military and judicial bureaucracy. Of course, many friends are offended by my constant use of the term ‘bureaucracy’ for the judiciary but, if you look through the mist, you will know that the judiciary of the country, being an unrepresentative force, is indeed a bureaucracy.

The committee system of our parliament supposedly has a critical watchdog function. While the standing committees in several cases are being used merely for photo-op purposes, the rationale of their very existence is to introduce more transparency to the system. That essentially implies that appointments to critical posts should undergo the standing committee’s public hearings. Will it be possible then for the next services chiefs, chief justices and intelligence czars to appear before the respective committees and answer some important questions? I know many of our generals and judges will be offended by the idea. Generals and judges are offended by such matters almost universally and their contempt for politicians is also a barely concealed fact. But still, this abhorrence does not stop them from appearing before the hearings and giving the most suitable answers. If this is not done, and if the new appointees are not taught about the centrality of parliament in a representative democracy, there is no assurance of an end to the replay of past coups in the country. I can only assume that since the present military and judicial leadership has repeatedly vowed to strengthen democracy, it will help in introducing such long-lasting changes.

Let us now talk about crucial money matters. Both the judiciary and the armed forces have thus far been given a carte blanche in money matters. The defence budget is not presented before parliament because that can leak crucial strategic information to the country’s enemies, and yet some of the most classified contents like the Hamoodur Rahman Commission Report have made it to foreign journals before even reaching us. Without complete oversight of these matters, things cannot improve. And this should be done even if it has to be done during in-camera sessions.

Now we come to the matters of access to information and ensuring better stock for our legislative bodies. Funnily enough, I have not heard much about the CRC making some amends in our failing access to information laws. Without transparency there is no democracy.

As for improving the quality of future legislators, a lot is said about educating the voters. But no one realises that the key to improving quality lies in establishing stable election campaign finance laws. It is my understanding that the election commission has sent a set of reform recommendations to the CRC. However, if there is no detailed law for helping raise and regulate campaign finance, political parties will continue selling tickets.

The piece originally appeared in Daily Times dated March 18. 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.

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.

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.

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.)