Farrukh Khan Pitafi's Official Website

They say fools who wear their hearts on their sleeves fail to make much of their lives. And it sounds, in its own weird way, true. There is only a limit to which emotions can take you and in this adult world (adult as in rated movies: violence R18, strong language R18, sexually explicit content PG13), maturity is supposed to do the rest. But can we mortals claim to be devoid of emotions? If we could, would we be any different from the metal men made of metal, silicon (silicon puts me in doubt though, and reminds me vaguely of something I cannot place properly) and circuits? Most probably not.

It is in human nature to pretend to be what one is not. While children are often not quite adept at that, look at the great lengths we go to hide our inner child from the world around us. Candidly put, immaturity has absolutely nothing to do with your upbringing or genes. Every living soul is bound to be immature one way or another. A classic example is your average, everyday office politics. Where else, after all, would you find examples of tiny men with huge egos? The ferocity with which we employees quarrel among ourselves, play the ruthless, heartless game of chess in the name of advancing our careers at other people’s cost has absolutely no other parallel. In doing so, do we not forget that no job can be forever and no matter how much we blame others for our inefficiency, one day we will have to leave this job too? Accept it, for it is all about career advancement and even religious terrorists to their reckoning are advancing careers in the afterlife.
The jury is still out on the name of the most powerful emotion. Some say it is love, others believe fear is the one. Of the two aforementioned the latter seems more plausible for had it not been for Freud’s befuddling and perverting interpretations, my heart was set on love. It is out of fear and not love that species in Darwin’s world appear to have evolved. While it is the positive aspect, there indeed is a flipside too. Fear kills our best talents and waylays our finest spirit. And in this context the worst fear inducing stimulus is not a multi-headed python or the prospect of fall from the top of the newly built Burj Khalifa, but the very society we live in. If anything, this is the ultimate machine of manufacturing consent and alas…mediocrity.
I know I am inverting every concept of social psychology but that at least is worth a try. You should then also know of the three penultimate deathly social fears in my vocabulary: the fear of rejection, of failure and of course of the unknown — better known as xenophobia. I know what rejection is through a relatively long and arduous journey in the media profession. The pain and realisation of someone trying to play the god and not even trying to understand your true potential is unfathomable and so is its fear.
Failure was one thing that was added in my dictionary only in recent years. When a newborn nephew died just in front of my eyes a few years back due to the negligence of doctors and I could not do anything, I understood what failure really was. Another failure came last year when a cousin, as dear as a brother, trapped in unfortunate circumstances, passed away at a young age and I, despite all my attempts to rescue him, could not help. The burden of these and the fear of more will always haunt me.
We will discuss fear of the unknown some other time. Suffice it to say that after living a long life of a homophobe when I finally knew and befriended a couple from the other side of the fence, I found out that they were not that horrible people after all. Freud’s work is another unknown that gives me severe headaches when I approach it.
When the three fears are brought together you can understand our political dilemmas too. Everyday I come across someone complaining that the president is talking too much of the conspiracies from the invisible forces. Then the prime minister’s example is given, who refuses to admit that something at all nefarious is afoot. Why this stark contrast, I am asked and I have to control my grin with much effort. Is it not obvious folks? The monkey tamasha staged during and after the NRO hearing by the media persons must have given those in power silent chills. How we ever came up to struggle for the independence of the judiciary is beyond my comprehension. Otherwise it clearly seems that we media-wallas consider ourselves judge, jury and executioner at the same time. Consider our opening lines regarding the NRO case: “Mulk ki looti hui daulat keh cases” (the cases pertaining to the looted wealth of the nation). The hearing, if I am not wrong, was about the Ordinance that gave amnesty to those who were being tried in the courts after these accusations. Not only did we then conclude that the national wealth was actually robbed but that too by the very accused.
So is it not natural for the one being treated as the chief accused to feel paranoid, especially when he has lost his wife and father-in-law to the very conspiracies? And as for the prime minister, who enjoys better rapport with other elements of the state and is not being implicated in the NRO debate, perhaps knows things a tad bit better and does not see any lethal hidden motives. Our army, opposition and the judiciary then might also be suffering from the fear of the unknown. There exists regarding the consecutive PPP tenures enough propaganda that the one inhaling it might be seriously worried about the future of the country.
This is the paradigm of fear that extensively explains the politics of the Islamic republic. Let me now turn to the paradigm of love where I will try to overturn Freud’s judgements. Without going into the details of the mechanics of love, I can say with full confidence that true love does exist and true hatred does not. Hatred, like evil, to me is the absence of love, trust and the fear of the unknown. If you love your country and your people deeply enough to actually care for their future, your own future of course becomes a secondary consideration. And here I believe none of my nation’s leaders fails me. Then where lies the actual problem? I think in the above mentioned compulsions of society. One of our social conventions is that a leader is supposed to have a coterie of sycophants around him. And this bureaucracy of mediocrity works on you in eerie ways to manufacture consent. Politicians are told that they will have no future if they do not turn belligerent.
Contrary to others I never considered the Charter of Democracy (CoD) a desperate bid to survive by two marginalised politicians. I considered it a serious effort to undo the wrongs of the past. Check my writings of the time and you will know that I never believed the confrontation between the superior courts and Musharraf was the judiciary’s attempt at self-preservation. Likewise, the army’s distancing from Musharraf was not an act of dumping a liability but a serious desire to learn from history. And for a while all these forces struggled together in harmony. Please give us back that spirit and allow us to live with the distinct pride in our leadership. A part of our sociology is the desire to leave behind a legacy. But by stamping out a few fear-related irritants, our current leadership can leave behind a legacy that will never be forgotten. So let us shun the assigned roles of society and rise above the tide of history to make a difference.
(The above column under the title “Zardari government and NRO judgement” first appeared in Daily Times dated January 7, 2010. Click here to see the original.)

When Antonio Gramsci, the renowned author of the Prison Notebooks and indeed a remarkably original thinker, gave us the term ‘civil society’, he made it quite distinct from what he termed ‘the political society’. While the former comprised of voluntary groups pertaining to everything apolitical, the latter was linked with the forces of coercion akin to politics. I am sure he never foresaw Pakistani civil society’s role that has indeed forgotten the useful analytic distinction between the two. Clearly the political activism of our civil society often ignores the consequences of its own actions.

But then I always had complaints about the poor reading habits of my fellow citizens. I vividly recall in the days of my youth – which incidentally are not over yet – during lectures and seminars someone would stand up and start calling civil society, erroneously of course, civilian society or civilised society, and we would sink in shame.

Shame is a useful commodity and so is memory. And since everyone these days is so obsessed with judicial activism, I want to take you to a trip down the memory lane. And as shameful and self-serving as it may seem, it is my memory that you will have to endure.

I was among the earliest journalists who protested in writing against Musharraf’s decision of sacking the incumbent chief justice. In my columns and through my website I kept churning out comments in support of the chief justice and the lawyers’ movement. So staunch was my faith that in my column titled, ‘A letter to Oxana’ (dated December 7, 2007), I wrote to my then 11-months old daughter: “And if my love, you ever come across Justice Iftikhar, Justice Bhagwandas, Justice Javed Iqbal, Aitzaz Ahsan and others who are standing with the people’s expectations, please hold your breath, lower your eyes and know that you are in the presence of greatness.”

But I also wrote, “When your father gained consciousness, a democratically elected prime minister who had promised hope to the poor had already been hanged through a conspiracy between foreign powers, a military ruler and others. I was too young to do or understand anything then, but I have always wondered why our elders tolerated this crime.” My respect for the apex courts and the people who worked for strengthening them has not changed. However, please notice that I had hoped in the very piece that the restored judiciary would stand for the protection of the elected representatives and democracy. It is in that bit of my dreams that today I am losing hope.

I definitely want an independent and thriving justice system. But I, simultaneously, want an even stronger democratic set up. But can democracy function when ministers and even the president are insulted on the media and in courts so openly, some unable to dispense their duties due to the exit control list (ECL)? Do not get me wrong. I am not saying that the accountability process should stop. Nor should the criticism of the government. But in the particular sector where victory is being proclaimed, prosecuting the civilian governments is not new. The very courts, after all, also hanged Zulfikar Bhutto.

I have absolutely no problem with the verdict. What else could we expect when the government did not even want to protect itself? Indeed the restraint exercised by the bench was commendable, with the only exception of advising the executive to replace certain officials in the accountability bureau. In the run up to the verdict many concerned friends from Sindh kept calling to ask if the rumours were true and the bench had ruled to unseat the president and the cabinet members. No attempt of that sort was mercifully made. What concerns me is the aggressive tone that the media and the courts have adopted. A minister being barred from an official foreign visit brought shame on to the country. Another minister was detained in the Lahore High Court for a bit. Lord, I had never dreamed that I would feel any sympathy for Rehman Malik, but it so happens that I do.

But coming back to the issues of shame, I have always believed that just like polio drops we need to administer shame drops in this country too. But unlike the polio vaccine the purpose of the shame vaccine would not be to cure shame but to induce it, for in our part of the world it is no longer a terminal disease. The need for this medicine has never been more desperate. I watch the television and I am told that the NRO was the blackest law in the country’s history. I beg to differ. It does not become a black law only because those who brought to us the 8th Amendment and the Hudood Ordinance say so. While it could be dubbed a discriminatory law, it had its strengths too. By establishing a cut off date for the amnesty it would have ensured that the incumbents did not indulge in any corruption in the future using the excuse of political victimisation. But that, dear readers, is in the past and we should address only the issue at hand, that is our future.

I have opined in the past that the Taliban apologists have used this debate to their advantage. If I was waiting for a sign I was not disappointed. After the verdict, the immunity of the president was challenged in the Lahore High Court by none other than Khalid Khawaja. If you expect me to say something further about the man who confesses to be Osama bin Laden’s pilot, then I am sorry to disappoint you. But you can always look him up on the internet. The incident of a known Taliban apologist in Khalid Khawaja seeking the president’s dismissal is something of a giveaway. As I had said earlier, they would like to drag down the government of every secular political party – and I include the PML-N in the list of secular ones too – and install a pro-Taliban regime in Islamabad. There is no need for me to explain how such an eventuality would mean only doom for the country’s moderate population. I wish everyone could understand what is at stake. Hence, instead of subjecting the country to one constitutional crisis after another it would be wise to wait till the war on terror is finished. If the democratic system takes root and the courts do function independently, I am sure the elections would decide who was corrupt and who was not. The system needs to function and attain stability.

Similarly, all institutions should define their boundaries and function within them. This is important because it is only through democracy that the people can change their future. I had said in the above-mentioned column that I am ready to die in the struggle for the independence of judiciary leading to a full democratic Pakistan. Just imagine how willing I must be as a citizen to protect the future of democracy in this country.

The writer is an independent columnist and a talk show host. He can be reached at farrukh.khan@pitafi.com
The column first appeared in Daily Times dated December 24, 2009

Carl Sagan might have called it a pseudo-science but in the Islamic Republic it is quite a popular discipline. Had it been limited to the rationalisation of mere superstitions I would have swallowed it as yet another bitter and bizarre peculiarity of my nationhood. But not quite, sir. Not only do you bump into the pseudo-scientists every other day in almost every family function, but they also seem to have acquired the knack of rubbishing the most well researched sectors of social sciences. Take political science, economics and international relations for instance. Not a day passes without some Plato inundating me with crude generalisations. If the Soviet Union fell, the US is just about to crumble down too. If socialism failed, it is the hour of reckoning for capitalism as well. If the Soviet Union had to pull out of Afghanistan defeated, the US is just about to meet the same fate.

Well, as they say, if wishes were horses beggars would ride. I wish historic causation were so simple and easy to understand. But it is not. The dynamics that brought the Soviet Union down are neither visible today in the US nor can any similarities be found between the two cases. Even if we were to employ the historiographer’s imaginative license here, the nearest we come across is Paul Kennedy’s hypothesis called the imperial overstretch. But if we accept that thesis on face value and even if the cause of the Soviet Union’s decline and fall was its mistake of overstretching its imperial prowess beyond the durable capacity, is the US committing the same mistake today?

Those who think it is are in for a rude awakening. There indeed are no ground rules for a state or even an empire’s decline and fall. But nations usually fall when they fail at collective renewal. The defining character of the American nationhood is its inclusive spirit. On the contrary, if you want to know why the USSR fell apart, you must watch a curious new movie made about the Russian Refuseniks in the final days of the Soviet Union called ‘Perestroika’.

When during the recent US presidential elections, I endorsed President Obama in my columns and TV appearances (even though I knew it made no difference whatsoever despite my being the only Pakistan journalist openly doing so), I was desperately trying to see some hope in the American political system. And I was not disappointed. After eight years of prolonged mismanagement and bad governance under the Bush regime, the US voters rose to the occasion and did away with the racial straitjackets. This to me was the triumph of the American political system to renew itself. My views have not changed ever since.

The same capacity is visible in the US presence in Afghanistan. People tend to forget that while the neo-conservatives showing cowboy bravado went to Iraq alone and erred in doing so, they entered Afghanistan with the full backing of the UN. Hence, while the US might have decided to pull out of Iraq at a given juncture, nature and extent of the pullout notwithstanding, deserting Afghanistan is an altogether different ball game. It is possible that the growing American difficulties may hurt for a short while but given the fluid situation on the ground, the countries of the region, no matter how hostile towards Washington, would prefer a US-led effort in the war-torn country rather than letting it slip back to absolute and perhaps irredeemable anarchy. When such a situation arises the NATO and non-NATO allies alike will find it politically conducive to renew their pledges for the country.

I know why so many people view a possible US failure in Afghanistan so wistfully. Not only is it consistent with our couch potato machismo but also with our perverted religious-political worldview. Many who have hardly ever understood the message of Islam and misinterpret it in political terms want a global religious movement led by the Taliban and al Qaeda to originate from Afghanistan and spread across the world. This silent and often disguised ambition is in so many hearts that they care two hoots about the plight of the Afghan citizens, who are being killed by both the terrorists and occupying forces simultaneously.

In response to those who think that the US exit from Afghanistan is the ultimate answer, I have this to submit. For decades when the US was not in the picture for long, Afghanistan endured brutal proxy wars played by its neighbours. It is badly battle scarred and during these proxy wars none of the self-appointed patrons of this landlocked country committed themselves to rebuilding the decimated infrastructure. The current occupation not only promises to bring the country back to the 21st century by eliminating the medieval forces but also shows the desire to rebuild its lost infrastructure. While there is no gainsaying that the foreign forces in the country need to show much more sensitivity towards the local culture and the precious lives of the citizens, abandoning the country at this juncture would only entail an unmitigated disaster for the region. If anything, the countries of the region need to commit themselves more to the peace building and reconstruction efforts there.

The above-mentioned worldview also reveals its ignorance in predicting the end of capitalism. Again there is no similarity between the fates of socialism and capitalism. While socialism envisages an unnaturally monolithic society, capitalism has peels like an onion. If in the closed socialist system impurities are introduced in a distant corner, the entire system is rendered inefficient and corrupt in no time. Whereas in capitalism, just like an onion, if one peel rots you can always remove it and go on eating the rest. Today what you find failing in the global financial system is just a newer, experimental generation of capitalism. It always has the potential to revert back to a more durable previous version. That is precisely why there is no Karl Marx in capitalism. Even Adam Smith should only be considered an interpreter of capitalism and not its inventor. Unlike a communist system, which abhors experimentation and values regimentation, capitalism is again an inclusive system. Had communism not declared capitalism its archenemy, I am sure capitalism would have found ways to imbibe its strengths in the growing efficacy of welfare states or social investment states.

Then capitalism is so close to the human nature. No matter how much we pretend otherwise, we mortals are the children of anarchy. Our life owes a lot to the death of plants and animals alike, from which we extract our nourishment. I know it sounds Malthusian to suggest that we have limited resources and unlimited population growth scope, but folks this is unfortunately true. In this natural mess that which Adam Smith once called the enlightened self-interest appears thus far to be our sole ticket to survival. Of course this gloomy situation can change if we shrug the doubts cast by the likes of Huntington and Toynbee, realise that we are one civilisation — the human civilisation, and instead of bickering among ourselves start colonising space. That would at the very least reduce the anarchy on our little blue and green planet.

The main problem with us, the citizens of Muslim societies, is that we think that Islam is under threat from the US or the West. While interpretations of Islam might be under threat owing to their own faults, let me remind you that the cultural strength of Islam too was its spirit of inclusion, not exclusion. Muslim societies that imbibed foreign intellectual influences burgeoned with thriving cultures. Hence, Islam is not under threat. The ideal way to recapture that past glory lies in soul-searching and learning from the examples of others rather than anticipating fall of a country that promises so much hope. Remember, while all nation states may one day decline and fuse to form a global republic, as things stand today, the US and capitalism are here to stay.

This column first appeared in Daily Times dated Dec 17th, 2009. Click here to visit the original)

Once upon a happy time, public office was considered the last refuge of the incompetent. Not any more sire. It is now the only El Dorado we set our eyes upon these days

Somehow the Western film industry has developed a fixation with Om Puri in representing Pakistani characters. Right from General Zia’s role in Charlie Wilson’s War to less important characters in East is East and My Son the Fanatic, he is everywhere. While Mr Puri is an excellent actor, repeatedly seeing him as a Pakistani on the screen, that too in diverse roles, does little to complement the subject matter of the films. I personally find it exceedingly dull and often offensive. Regardless of his acting skills, Mr Puri is no Marlon Brando and even if you take appearance alone, his face cannot represent 170 million cheerful and vibrant citizens of this country, ad nauseam. Can it be dubbed as what Edward Said once called Orientalism? At the risk of being considered shallow, I do think that the western popular culture does want to view Pakistan only as a part of the problem and not even remotely a contributory to the solution. Stereotypes then of course help.

But are we Pakistanis also to blame for such a stereotypical representation? Surely we are more than Mr Puri’s pockmarked visage. It is here that one has to admit that we are indeed a confused nation. I say confused because we often flatter ourselves with the notion that if we can do something good, we can do everything good. Here we often forget that if we try to be jacks-of-all-trades we end up being master of none. Consequently retired generals are seen managing cricket boards, retired cricketers running for public office, bankers and generals ruling the country, and media gurus trying to dictate the national agenda. It is as if there are no boundaries in disciplines and fields of expertise.

Frankly, in our country there is hardly any niche for an expert. Ever wondered why the Musharraf regime left this country in such an abysmal mess? Because when a dictator rules the country his word is considered law. From economics to politics, culture and sociology, he is considered the expert on everything and the coterie of sycophants around him do everything to convince both him and us of that. I think I will be wasting your precious time if I think I can put it any better than Habib Jalib in his famous poem Musheer. Consequently the world can see one face and one face alone at a time and all the time.

In any case as a nation we need to sort out our priorities. As things stand today it seems we do everything for the sake of politics. We get rich to enter politics, we become famous to enter politics, and we acquire power to enter politics. I have absolutely no interest in seeking to depoliticise your minds but frankly folks, too much of everything is also bad. Why waste your energies and considerable ingenuities in seeking something that is an absolute burden?

This misplaced ambition is so powerful that if an average Pakistani living abroad is given the choice to be the head of a janitor’s association or to accept a distinguished post in academe, he may opt for the former just because it offers a measure of political power and clout. I know exceptions are everywhere, but why not talk of India where these exceptions make the rule? We always complain that Mr Om Puri’s country is accorded a preferential treatment all over the world but we forget that Indians love knowledge, the arts, literature, science and humanities as much as we love power. How about Rabindranath Tagore’s Geetanjali, the Chandrasekhar Limit in physics and Dr Amartya Sen’s exploits in development economics? India worships knowledge, music, chess, diplomacy, theatre, cinema, literature, and practically everything worth mentioning. We too once had a Nobel laureate called Dr Abdus Salam. We were so offended by his cheek in pursuing anything other than power that we declared him a non-Muslim and sought to delete the word Muslim even from his epitaph. Consequently no one else has plucked the courage to win the prize again. Similarly, even some of our musicians consider their profession a sin and try their best to live with it.

Once upon a happy time, public office was considered the last refuge of the incompetent. Not any more sire. It is now the only El Dorado we set our eyes upon these days. And usually this ambition resides in the subconscious or unconscious part of our minds. Hence many people who would at a later stage enter into politics will not even confess to such an ambition. At times it seems that Macbeth was a Pakistani citizen too.

Forgive me if I concede that I have never been able to comprehend the efficacy of politics. Being a stubborn anarchist, I hope that one day the world will have no boundaries and absolutely no need for governments. As long as I can read, write and indulge myself in some regular evils, I am good. No doubt there was a time when I considered politics a noble profession worth a try, yet it has been ages since I grew out of it. Many it seems have not.

And even in politics we fail to do justice to our responsibilities. Politicians hardly do any homework before coming to power. You do not see too many shadow cabinets working when parties are not in power. Most of the parties that usually champion the cause of democracy lack in internal democracy and transparency. And who cares even two hoots about actual policies when there are better sports possible like transferring favourite bureaucrats and scoring political points.

Consider this: If you are rich and hence dedicate some part of your fortune to philanthropy, you are an angel. If you are famous and lend your popularity to a good cause, people give you a home in their hearts. If you are powerful and contribute something to the betterment of society, you are a champion. But if you are a politician and step out of power, people distribute sweets, and when the final moment arrives, people shrug their shoulders and carry on with their lives unaffected.

But political ambition is visible even at the most unlikely places. Why on earth are the Taliban waging this ridiculously silly war against you? To gain power and rule you according to their perverted worldview of course. Why do so many media pundits exceed their bounds and start dictating terms to the government? Because they have an active interest in power; when not being the king then at least to be a kingmaker. Why do politicians indulge in corruption? To be rich enough to stay in power forever. The common man’s obsession with the news media these days is also due to this obsession with power.

While I do not have any qualms about anyone’s personal ambitions, I do believe that it is an awful waste of nature’s gifts not to look anywhere other than the power echelons for solace. I believe that this country can produce great musicians, dancers, novelists, playwrights, producers, sportsmen, scientists and researchers. But for that we will have to stop trying to be jacks-of-all-trades and strive to be masters of one. Let us hope that one thing is not politics though. I know that day will finally come. I only wish that I can see it with my own eyes.

Originally appeared in Daily Times on Sunday, December 6, 2009. Click here to see the original.

I have tried uncountable times but a talk show host just cannot step out of your television screen and land into your living room. Nor can any host slap your wrist when you try to switch the channel
What came first, madness or your average everyday shrinks? If Darwin is to be believed shrinks came first, and homo sapiens tried to adapt to this change by volunteering to go mad. But Douglas Adams takes a gloomier view of the matter in his magnificent Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. If Adams is to be believed, man is a direct descendant of the one-third, and obviously quite mad, population of the planet Golgafrincham. The planet’s sane majority, tired of those indefatigable loonies, invents a myth of impending doom, loads the lot in a spaceship without control, programmes it to crash safely but irreversibly into a newly built planet, and sends it off. Unfortunately for us, the planet turns out to be none other than Earth. While the human species must have evolved considerably for the two million years since its arrival on the planet, you can spot the shadows of the very same madness in our eyes even today.

If you are not yet convinced, an even better testimony of all this comes from our changing television appetite. Once upon a happy time, Pakistani television plays were renowned the world over. No more, sir. Today our average middle class living rooms have been successfully colonised by the Indian saas-bahu soaps and men weary of this travesty of entertainment try to find some drama on the news channels. Only a few months after I started hosting talk shows, a sombre looking distant relation whose occupation after his carpet trade is to watch talk shows, told me what was lacking in my shows was some drama. “Nobody wants to watch a knowledge-based smooth running show. They want aggression, people insulting each other and of course while you are at it a lot of conspiracy theories.” I could not do anything but tell him that if I wanted to do that kind of angry stuff, I would have either chosen to be a stand-up comedian or a mystery or science fiction author.

And yet a lot of friends have also complained about their irritable bowels syndrome, a gift of the ever-growing trend of breaking news with gory footage. Indignant at their silent suffering, I have to ask why they choose to watch news channels if they have such vulnerable and often nervous stomachs. In response I have to endure misty-eyed stares and clueless silence.

In some circles of our elite it has become customary to blame the TV anchors for everything that goes bad in the country. Believe me I have absolutely no interest in defending anyone in this profession. A lot of shoddy work goes on in the talk shows here. Not to mention that anchors most belligerent against the current government are often seen popping in and out of buildings occupied by the establishment or the intelligence agencies. Yet is it their fault that they are being taken so seriously? Capitalism and democracy make one hell of a deadly cocktail and it takes all sorts to finish it. But without questioning anyone’s right to sell his soul to the devil, can we not ease our minds a bit by treating all this as one big joke?

I have tried uncountable times but a talk show host just cannot step out of your television screen and land into your living room. Nor can any host slap your wrist when you try to switch the channel. That means if someone is mad and discussing weird conspiracy theories on the screen, we too are up for watching it.

Honestly, dear readers I ask you, is it a compulsion to watch something that bothers you all the time? It is considered the duty of a news channel to bring you news as it happens. Likewise, when it comes to the talk shows or other current affairs programmes it always helps to have a few devil’s advocates on board. Okay, Pakistani channels have quite a few of them. Then what? If you want an absolutely unbiased anchor, then would it not be prudent to give the job to a robot rather than a being of flesh, bones, stupidity and emotions?

Nor can a channel force you to believe in something that you never believed in. For instance there is this eschatological philosopher disguised as a doctor, a conspiracy theorist and a former PTV chairman and MD. In the not quite so distant past he presented a series on the end of time. Repeatedly we were told that the end was nigh. Try as I might, I could not convince myself of all this bollocks. Even today that tale from the crypt is a standing joke among my peers. Believe me, while it is quite silly, doomsday cannot come prematurely just because a talk show host says it will.

Everyone has the right to say whatever he wants, of course stopping short of slander. When we complain, we do so because we fail to hear what we already believe in and want to hear. That means that the problem lies not with the anchors but with the quality of public perceptions and the realities. Undoubtedly our society is brimming with hypocrisy. And yet we do not want people like us sitting in government or the media. Nay, we want angels there.

The quality of a society can be judged by the quality of governance and its media content. If we are being poorly served we need to ask what is lacking in us. I am not as much worried about the slant in our talk shows as I am about the demise of arts and culture in our society. Keep switching channels and you will fail to find any good television plays or even sitcoms. In their place we are expected to watch substandard soap operas with tenuous storylines. Pakistani music, which until quite recently was making Indian artists insecure, is losing its magic touch. Similarly, it is not every day that you come across some good piece of literature. Frankly, if news bulletins and talk shows are our sole entertainment today and gossip is replacing informed talk, our country must be turning into one little sorry place to live in.

Is there any antidote? Yes of course. All we need to do is to fine-tune our media appetite and demand improvement in the television content. Personally I am not much fussed about the national interest. I am concerned about the quality of the national wisdom, which we can work together to improve. And the artists among us need to work harder to revive the lost glory. Meanwhile the pro-government or pro-democracy class can find solace in the fact that no anchor can remove a ruler. It takes much more than that and perhaps a lot of government stupidity to accomplish. And the anti-government lobbies can also take heart, knowing that as long as there are two views available in the media, their voice will not go unrepresented. This madness, after all, is called liberal democracy.

(Note: This article was written on World Television Day)
Originally carried on Nov 24, 2oo9 in Daily Times. Click here to see the original