The brouhaha over the Dunya News video leak has shifted the spotlight from the real issue of accountability to the dark underbelly of the television news networks. Though it fills me with a sense of gratification that within days of writing an article for this newspaper, (“Modern-day gladiators”, June 8), the thrust of the article was reinforced; general public witnessed on TV the macabre machinations that have brought infamy to electronic media, especially the talk show hosts. But talk show hosts are just one aspect of the bigger picture and the singular focus on the television news networks is misleading. Malik Riaz, the billionaire wheeler-dealer, levelled allegations against the son of Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, accusing him of graft. That remains the real issue.

The reputation of the business tycoon has been under the cloud ever since he set foot in the real estate industry. Although money cannot buy everything, Malik Riaz has tried to attempt it anyhow. His rags to riches journey was possible only because as an outsider to the system, he realised that he could wheedle his way in only through sheer ingratiation and doling out as much money as was the worth of the person he had to deal with. He has been unabashed about his ways and has called out those who deny this as hypocrites. Given his ways, it should not be a surprise that he tried to sway the courts by attempting to cohort the son of the chief justice. What is surprising, albeit shocking, is how easily the prodigal son allowed himself to enter into a situation that has charred not only him but also his father.

Justice Chaudhry’s defence of being unaware of his son’s excesses is disingenuous and improbable. Quoting religious scriptures and absolving himself from the responsibility of ensuring that his son does not enter into dubious dealings is a pale and unfortunate justification. Questions about the activism of the chief justice in investigating charges of corruption anywhere and everywhere except home have surfaced, inevitably, and cannot be easily brushed under the carpet. This, however, seems to be the effort. The insinuation that asking the son to clear his name and justifying how he managed to erect a business worth Rs900 million is akin to limiting the independence of the judiciary is rather ludicrous. The Lawyers’ Movement was iconoclastic in essence. It is surprising that those who were at the forefront of this movement have themselves turned a blind eye to the core of their struggle. Recent attempts to cement the judiciary as a holy cow, when all others have been shattered, reek of selective morality and principles.

The billionaire tycoon and the high-rolling son must stand in the dock without any discrimination. The recent judgments by the Court give an impression that the judges have tried to steer themselves clear from such an eventuality, despite throwing the ball in the government’s court. The selectively televised full-court meeting last week gave a partisan and expedient impression, especially when the chief justice reprimanded the obsequious chairman of Pemra for footage that was leaked on Youtube in the first instance. The formation of a two-member judges committee that would delve into media regulation will be a positive step only if it does not attempt to shield the judges or their families from any accountability or scrutiny.

The self-righteous electronic media, meanwhile, is licking its wounds. Given how things work around here, the wounded beast will be back on its feet soon, with an even more aggressive posture. The beleaguered anchors have already heaped the blame on the powerful owners of television networks. The owners, the master puppeteers, remain safely bunkered, unscathed by the public opprobrium. In this game of smoke and mirrors, all power players are guilty of hubris, expediency and selective moral.

Published In The Express Tribune, June 23^rd, 2012.

The era of political talk show hosts’ unquestionable popularity is over. But is it too soon to write their obituary? Maybe, just maybe, but not entirely. The phenomenon of talk show hosts, most commonly referred to as anchors here, has peaked and now they have hit a plateau and have hit it hard. As I had written once earlier, anchors have “degenerated into populist evangelists, sensationalistic and deluded, high on self-righteous pretense” (“Television’s real wrestling”, June 22, 2010 ).

No longer can political talk show hosts sit on their high vantage point, waving flags of moral and financial righteousness, as well as that of political correctness and clobber those who do not fit into their straitjackets and world view. The same audience that used to gleefully watch and enjoy the spectacle of feuding politicians on the television screen is getting rather tired of it all. The sudden popularity of dramas on entertainment channels is a testimony to the public’s boredom with the formula that has been repeated ad nauseam on political talk shows. The shouting matches, the verbal assaults, the below-the-belt attacks, the overdose of platitudes do not cut ice any more. The audience has seen through the charade. The talk show hosts have been stripped of their venerated cloaks. They played the game of being ‘holier than thou’ for too long and that too, with unrelenting viciousness.

As they went on a mad frenzy of exposing everyone else in society, they themselves lay exposed under the microscope of a disapproving public eye. Their political affiliations are apparent, no matter how hidden or slanted they may be. There is nothing wrong in having such affiliations but they won’t do if the insistence is on appearing non-partisan and above board. Tales of financial irregularities and extracting unethical benefits haunt them as much as they haunt those belonging to other professions. The shallowness and biases of many talk show hosts have surfaced from the depths of apparent profundity. For too long they flailed on television screens against anyone and everyone. Eventually, they drowned themselves in the blare of their own sermons.

But I don’t mean to castigate everyone. There are some who still try to do justice to their jobs. However, finding a balance is difficult and this perilous tightrope-walk cannot go on endlessly. There is exasperation with the old formula of forcing the guests into a cockfight. There is now a greater yearning for real, informed analysis and dispassionate debate. The theatrics have outlived their utility. The condescending, all omniscient attitude of such hosts is turning repulsive. Rather than acting as God’s gifts to the country, they should perhaps, act as vessels through which genuine questions flow towards their guests.

Of course, a fair share of the blame lies with the audience and the participants as well. The politicians willingly made sorry spectacles of themselves. They appeared on the shows with little preparation or research. Maintaining dignity and self-respect seemed too low on their priority lists. They readily and too easily clutched at the bait thrown at them.

However, just as the audience has balked, there has been a little push back by the politicians too, in recent times. The way information minister Qamar Zaman Kaira took on Kamran Khan made headlines and was widely discussed. Few days later, Kaira rolled the steamer over Talat Hussain. What surprised me was that several journalists actually seconded Kaira’s bare-knuckled response. The response reflects the public denunciation of these stereotypical programmes and nauseating moralising by most of the anchors. ‘Can anything constructive come out of these talk shows’ is a question often asked now. There is, of course, appetite for shows that have substantive debate and valuable participation. Such programmes will continue to be watched and appreciated. But will the ‘anchors’ take on that mantle and banish pandering to the demands of marketing executives, for whom ratings matter above everything sane and sensible. Hardly a chance.

Published in The Express Tribune, June 9^th, 2012.

Hasan Nisar, the columnist who ordinarily wears expensive watches and clothes and passionately and angrily talks about the plight of the poor, is a popular talk show guest. I like the man for his irreverent tone towards the corrupt political elite and decadent religious figureheads. But for all his apparent rationality and usually progressive views, he sometimes surprises his readers and audience.

In his weekend talk show appearance, Nisar urged sending hundreds of thousands of people to the guillotine. “We need ten thousand Tara Masihs”, he said, referring to the executioner of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. Mr Nisar amended the reference to Masih, clarifying that it was only a figurative reference to the Masih that executed an innocent man but that executioners were needed to sort out the mess in the country. Nothing new here, some would say.

Such a wish for a bloody revolution is expressed often and seen as a quick remedy for the ills that have racked this ‘Land of the Pure’. The guillotines of the French Revolution are admired here, both by cracker-barrel philosophers and armchair analysts, as if they provide the only cure to the malaise that has gnawed this country. Colonel Imam (the nom de guerre of Sultan Amir Tarar), the intelligence operative who was often referred to as the godfather of the Taliban, expressed similar views in 2010, not long before he was kidnapped and eventually killed by the Taliban. I had invited Colonel Imam to my house for an interview. He was a tall man who liked to say that he understood a question even before it was completed. He narrated several tales from his experiences with the Afghans; his idolisation of Mullah Omar and how the Taliban took over Afghanistan. Before leaving, Imam raised his finger and made a prediction: “I tell you there will be a bloody revolution in Pakistan.” He predicted a grim picture where the ordinary population would pick up arms and take revenge from the ruling elite. It was the only inevitability, he warned.

I shuddered at such bloody predictions back then and was uncomfortable with Nisar’s guillotine idea. But actually, there is no dearth of those who hear the clarion of revolution and include some unlikely figures like Abdul Sattar Edhi, the philanthropist. And then there are some who say that the next military coup — if and whenever it happens — will not be a ‘bloodless coup’, as has been the case in the past.

A bloody revolution is romanticised as some essential purifying process which would ensure that rotten people are eliminated, leaving only those citizens who are pure or who want and represent change. In some ways, such wishes for blood and gore are rooted in the absolute grievances towards a political and social system that has failed to deliver. Nothing works, especially for the poor and downtrodden. So, the prevalent common wisdom is that the old order must be destroyed first in order to pave way for a new one.

But how does this ensure that those who are clamoring for blood will not become victims of this bloodshed themselves? How can annihilation and destruction be selective in its targets and predictable in its course? And how readily and easily will the subsequent chaos and mayhem give way to order and peace? Such questions are eclipsed by the fantasies of those who want a bloody revolution. It offers a quick fix and patience for an evolutionary, gradual process towards change that is running thin. Hasan Nisar is at his best when he comments on society and tears apart its inherent hypocrisy and contradictions. I hope in his next talk show episode, he can explain why he thinks the guillotine is the only way forward.

Published in The Express Tribune, May 17^th, 2012. 

The stories of the ‘disappeared’ regularly make the headlines in local and international media. The agony felt by the families of those who are illegally detained by spy organisations is indeed harrowing. The case of the ‘disappeared’ has been fought quite vocally by the media. I often wonder if something is amiss in the grand narrative of the missing persons, especially in the way their story is often told. But first, for the record, there is no denying that the law should be supreme and any digression and ham-handed approach by law enforcement agencies should be abhorred and opposed. I have consistently written on the issue and have interviewed dozens of such families and terror suspects across the country. There is no way one can defend illegal detentions and torture cells. Yet, sometimes what strikes me is that the media portrayal of the ‘disappeared’ often glosses over the fact that, more often than not, most of the persons who are picked up do have links — sometimes solid, sometimes tenuous — with extremist and militant outfits. Some TV news networks and print journalists simply overlook this fact or possibility. The story of the missing is told as a slam dunk case: someone randomly picked up and thrown into a bottomless dungeon.

Is it really that simple? Why is it that most of the missing persons belong to a certain ideological and religious conviction? Here, I am not talking about the Baloch. That is a separate matter. This piece focuses on those who have alleged links with radical outfits. In my several years of reporting, I have consistently encountered this situation. Those who are picked up often had some grey areas in their lives due to which they were netted. It is quite understandable that the families often claim their absolute innocence. No one likes to confess to wrongdoing. Quite often the families of persons who have been involved in militancy are unaware of the activities of their relatives.

By focusing solely on the families’ plight, are we overlooking and even ignoring the other side of the story, which is perhaps darker and uglier? Some people are quick to denounce the militants after each terrorist attack and sarcastically point at the public apathy towards such attacks. But I wonder why such reflection is not employed in the story of the missing persons. Why aren’t people ready to even look at the possibility that, alongside the grim tales of torture and illegal detentions, there may also be macabre terrorist plots? Lack of coordination between different law enforcement agencies, weak prosecution, legal lacunae and an outdated law of evidence compound the problem.

I recall several illustrative examples but would cite just one. In 2007, I wrote a feature about the missing persons for The New York Times. One of the persons I interviewed belonged to Gujranwala. Muhammad Tariq was arrested in connection with the assassination attempts on General (retd) Pervez Musharraf. His ordeal in illegal custody was depressing. He denied the charges against him and said he was arrested because he used to give charity to a banned outfit. Some months later, I happened to be outside Adiala Jail in Rawalpindi. A female prisoner was being released. She had also been implicated in a case related to another assassination attempt on Musharraf. Her husband had hidden weapons in their Islamabad apartment and the police claimed that she was an accomplice in the plan. But it couldn’t provide evidence that satisfied the court and she was granted bail. It was late in the night and several people had gathered to receive her. To my surprise, I saw Mr Tariq standing there too. Upon inquiring, he replied that he was there to show solidarity for her. It dawned on me that no matter what is publicly stated, there are always linkages that bind such elements or foster affinity between them.

We must oppose illegalities in the efforts against militancy and terrorism. But such sympathy must not make us blind to the darker shadows that lurk behind the visible stories.

Published in The Express Tribune, May 11^th, 2012.

Sequestered behind the walls of his Abbottabad hideout, Osama bin Laden certainly did not seem to relish his life and the way his global jihad had foundered and crumbled. This is the impression one gets from the sheaf of OBL letters released on May 3. Bin Laden worried about his legacy and his network splintering into several outfits, many of which were outside his control. He worried about tactics and strategy. He wanted to rebrand al Qaeda, hoping that the makeover would win over alienated sympathisers. Quite a bit of worrying by a man whose intentions and actions wrecked the lives of so many. He was propped up by his handlers as the warrior saint in the 1990s. But after orchestrating the 9/11 attacks, he was a man on the run, chased by the US — and ostensibly by Pakistanis too. All along, his followers made sure that they sowed discord and destruction through their militancy. Even now, a year after the US raid that killed him, Bin Laden’s devastating legacy continues to haunt Pakistan.

The disclosure that he was hiding in plain sight came as a surprise to some. For years, as the hunt continued, Bin Laden’s last hideout, Abbottabad, did not figure high on the radar. He was thought to be hiding along the border with Afghanistan or high up in the mountains near Chitral. Intelligence officials speculated that he may have moved into the tribal badlands and may be avoiding electronic communication to avoid detection. Not many would have imagined that he was ensconced comfortably in several semi-urban hideouts in northwestern Pakistan. But in hindsight, maybe it was not that unimaginable. Osama bin Laden’s close associates were mostly captured from cities such as Karachi, Rawalpindi, Faisalabad and Gujrat. Still, the public here has viewed the ‘war against terror’ with disapproval. The al Qaeda has often been portrayed as an imaginary outfit and there is no dearth of people who continue to deny Bin Laden’s presence in Abbottabad.

Interestingly, Bin Laden expressed dissatisfaction with the ways of militants who he had initially inspired. He disapproved the tactics employed by the Pakistani Taliban, calling on them to stop attacks on mosques, public places and the general public. His exhortations were, however, spurned by the new breed of militants, who are a mix of ideologues and criminals and have little deference for the old guard.

The letters provide no details about the support Bin Laden received inside Pakistan. Perhaps, such information — if there is any — has been withheld for now. Pakistani military and spy organisations came out tainted after the May 2, 2011 raid. Their public image was battered and morale in the ranks sank. The military complained of betrayal by the US for conducting a stealth mission. But it is quite apparent that these feelings of distrust are shared by both sides with the Salala border incident only exacerbating the strains between them. Suspicions about the duplicity and complicity of Pakistani military and spy organisations continue to linger. Osama’s deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, is still at large. Till 2004, Pakistani soldiers were fighting against militants in South Waziristan after reports of Zawahiri’s sighting in that region. Rumours about his movement in Balochistan have also emerged. If past events portend any hint, the eventual discovery of his whereabouts might also come as a big surprise.

Published in The Express Tribune, May 5^th, 2012.

A deluge of tragedies has struck the country in recent times; the Bhoja Air crash being the latest. An investigation has been started and if one goes by experience and history, the inquiry will also come to naught.

I was appalled after watching the press briefing given by the director-general of the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) on April 23. The whole focus of the CAA director-general’s (DG) maiden press conference seemed to be not to brief the journalists assembled on the tragic Bhoja Air crash, but rather to taunt/mock them for their lack of aviation knowledge and for not being well versed in the intricacies and technicalities of aircraft and how they fly.

The fact of the matter is that an ordinary passenger is not concerned about the mumbo jumbo of aviation. And the same logic applies to a journalist, in that a reporter who covers aviation does not necessarily have to be an expert on it (of course, over time he can acquire extensive knowledge on it and so on). The only — and foremost — concern of an ordinary traveller is to reach his or her destination safe and sound.

In case of an accident, it is the right of journalists — on behalf of the general public — to ask questions as to what went wrong. Instead of mocking the layman for not being aware of unnecessary/extraneous information, the DG should be ensuring that the CAA is run in an effective, efficient and transparent manner. Clearly, in the manner that the press conference was conducted, this was not something that the senior official had realised.

When the incumbent DG was appointed to his post, there were several reports in the press criticising this decision of the prime minister, the argument being that merit was apparently not the deciding factor. Prior to being head of the CAA, he was head of the PIA for a brief period and that appointment also evoked protests from concerned quarters.

That said, the purpose here is to comment on the press briefing that was supposed to be on the Bhoja Air crash but rather turned out to be a tirade on the media in general. Rather than work for the betterment of their respective organisations, senior officials and state functionaries seem more concerned with putting the media down or with self-aggrandisement.

After the Airblue crash, the CAA should have taken it upon itself to reform and regulate the aviation industry in an effective, efficient and transparent manner. Also, the Airblue investigation report should have been made public, so that ordinary people would know that, perhaps some lessons were learned and further tragedies minimised.

The only change that one hears of is of the director-generals at the top. And here, too, there is an explanation of sorts. The CAA is a choice posting, especially for three-star PAF officers after they retire. Before the incumbent director-general, a retired air marshal headed the organisation. An English newspaper reported last week that he did what he could to expedite the NOC that was needed by Bhoja Air to resume operations.

But what is even more unfortunate is that such officers — especially if they are former generals or their equivalent in the air force or navy — get away with their alleged excesses and violations. Accountability is a visitor that never knocks at their doors. Instead, such people keep getting one cushy job after another.

Published in The Express Tribune, April 26^th, 2012.

The shooting in Lahore has all the potential to erupt into another public relations disaster for America in Pakistan, where anti-Americanism is already high, whipped up by rightwingers and nationalists as a convenient bogey all the time. The US is held responsible for everything that goes awry in this ‘land of the pure’.

America-bashing has taken the shape of a master craft, which is well-rehearsed and constantly repeated. In such an atmosphere of mistrust and acrimony, a shooting spree that leaves more questions asked than answered is a troubling development and couldn’t have come at a worse time.

One cannot deny that American citizens have to be cautious and wary about their security in the country. They often encounter hostile behaviors and political and religious sentiments override many social interactions. American motives are under constant scrutiny. The alliance with the US is perpetually judged in black and white. Religious and nationalistic rhetoric presents a distorted and skewed relationship between the two countries.

American officials are often labeled as ‘Blackwater operatives’ by some sections of the local media, and this has endangered their lives.

The fact that many Americans and other diplomats carry arms while travelling inside the country, keeping in mind the precarious security situation, is not a secret, and known to both the public and the local law enforcing authorities.

It is still not exactly clear what really happened in Lahore on January 27. Raymond Davis claims that he acted in self-defence. But is he guilty of using excessive force? Could he have acted with more restraint? What is his actual background? Pakistani officials also need to thoroughly investigate the two motorbike riders. Initial accounts by police say that two weapons were found with the two dead. Street crime is nothing new. Is there any credence in the claim by the family of one of the deceased that one weapon was licensed and carried due to a family feud?

The facts need to be ascertained but, more importantly, made open to the public. The law should run its due course.

This unfortunate episode provides a window of opportunity to the US as well. Instead of maintaining a silence, which would result in furthering poisonous rumour mongering and conspiratorial speculations, US officials need to be transparent and open. Their silence would be heard loudly and presented as a testimony of guilt by those who oppose the US in an almost knee-jerk reaction. One incident, if badly handled, can wash away all the good that the United States has done recently for the flood victims in the country.

The shooting has already put the Pakistani government under pressure and officials have tried to dismiss the impression that the US citizen would be meted out any preferential treatment. Mr Davis has been charged with murder. The trial and its proceedings should make for riveting headlines.

Published in The Express Tribune, January 30^th, 2011.

As a friend pointed out the other day, what can one say about a society that gets consumed by either Malik Mumtaz Hussain Qadri, the assassin of Salmaan Taseer, or by Veena Malik, the talented but tainted movie and television actress? Both are abhorrent and are examples of absurd extremes. To make matters worse, our reactions to both of these personalities and their actions also exhibits moral bankruptcy and bigotry.

Veena Malik did not go to participate in “Bigg Boss 4” as a representative of Pakistan. That is a fact. Whatever she did, and no matter how undignified or vulgar her behaviour was, she did it on her own, individual capacity. She herself acknowledges that she went there as an entertainer. She is a person who is already dogged by controversies and scandals. Expecting her not to cause a ruckus is rather naive and foolish and is akin to expecting the nature of the proverbial beast, so to speak, to change.

So national honour should not be sullied and those who think that it has been trampled upon are only making fools of themselves. But then, context is important. Ms Malik does owe her identity to Pakistan and, more so, to the country’s abysmally bad film industry. Did she expect that the show she was on would be viewed in a vacuum and that some people in Pakistan wouldn’t judge her behaviour through a prism of nationalistic fervour?

But what I find more interesting is that for the sake of the show, and in self-defence, she is now throwing mud at an already very-stained Pakistani film industry. Her tirade against Syed Noor and Kamran Shahid in January 23’s episode of “Frontline” on Express News made interesting television but was very self-serving and misleading as well.

Similarly, one cannot fault or stop people — who are, by and large, offended by the way she conducted herself on “Bigg Boss” — for speaking out against her. After all, whenever something comes in the public domain, it does become a subject of public discussion. Tongues will wag. Fingers will be pointed. Conclusions will be drawn.

But mostly, whenever such a stirring does take place here, it becomes more a reflection of the double standards and hypocrisy of our society than anything else. As for Veena Malik’s critics, one needs to ask them how they would explain the massive demand for — and hence widespread acceptance of — Indian movies in every nook and corner of Pakistan. If going to India and appearing in a film or a reality TV show is deemed objectionable, then so should be the import and screening of Indian movies and dramas.

Pakistani actress Meera received pretty much the same kind of treatment when she appeared in a Mahesh Bhatt-directed film some years back. Why, then, blame Veena of wanting to become an object of desire, when songs like “Sheila ki Jawani” and “Munni Badnam Hui” have a massive following here? These tunes are hummed by all and sundry and some of our politicians use them to convey their points! Why, then, blame Veena Malik for exhibiting her ‘jawani’ and wanting (and perhaps glowing in) the ‘badnami’?

She has made a good point in that she has questioned the doublespeak and double standards of moralists and reactionaries on this side of the border. But for that, should she have a carte blanche to do whatever she wants to do?

Published in The Express Tribune, January 26^th, 2011.

Karachi is on the boil again. It is not ethnic. It is not linguistic. It is a vicious and brutal political war of turfs and patronage. The simmering conflict needs a political solution. But for now, all major power players in the city are keen to use muscle to outmanoeuvre their rivals. Politics is eclipsed by militancy. Brinkmanship trumps dialogue. Negotiations are just a euphemism for capitulation by one side or the other.

On a broader level, Karachi, which is an administrative nightmare anyway, represents everything that goes wrong when the writ of the state withers and gets diluted. As the Taliban insurgency rages on in the northwestern parts of the country, the Pashtun population has, over the years, trickled into Karachi in search of safety and livelihoods. Their numbers have increased and will continue to do so in the near future. With this, it is only but natural that their appetite for political and other benefits would increase multifold.

The MQM has foreseen this shift and is already dreading the consequences. The Muhajir demographics have changed in the last decade, and they are no more in a majority. But the MQM wants to ensure its iron hold over the city and the revenue it generates. It does not want any redistribution or restructuring of municipality demarcations.

The MQM makes the right political noises but the tough tactics and bare-knuckle politics of the party pose a challenge to any government in Islamabad. The ruling PPP government faces the same dilemma.

Furthermore, the MQM has flexed its muscles in the past and continues to do so till now. The ANP, for its part, isn’t afraid of this either, in Karachi. ‘Target killings’ are the ugliest manifestation of the political tussle that is going on between the MQM, the ANP and the PPP. There is no ‘hidden hand’ or ‘third force’ that is trying to destabilise the city. The culprits are amongst those who claim innocence and ignorance.

But there are no easy or quick fixes either.

For now, there is perhaps a need for a new set of power brokers and political firefighters. The interior minister’s patch-ups are temporary and get upended no sooner than they are stitched. Someone else from the PPP needs to be in charge to act as a mediator and negotiator. All political parties will have to sit together and figure out a way to deweaponise the city, devise a system of proportional representation and share the responsibility of maintaining peace. Turmoil in Karachi serves no interest of the country. But threats of sowing instability and perpetuating the spree of coldblooded killings — if demands are not met — is sheer blackmail and nothing else. This has to end.

The MQM has to accept the changing ground realities. Karachi is too big a cake for any political party to eat alone. New migrants will have to be integrated into the city. Forcing them onto the fringes or thwarting their influx won’t work. On the other hand, both the ANP and the PPP need to stop patronising and protecting criminals who are masquerading as political workers and operating in the slums and outskirts of the city. The calls for a military operation, even if limited in scope, are, however, a recipe for further disaster. Bringing in paramilitary and army troops won’t address the root causes of the malaise that is crippling the city.

Published in The Express Tribune, January 23^rd, 2011.

The question staring at everyone right now is: ‘What next?’

Epithets and laments are being written ruefully for the liberals — mostly by themselves — who feel persecuted and marginalised, as much as the religious minorities. They feel their voice is being increasingly strangulated; freedom of expression and tolerance is fatally on the wane and their existence at the highest peril. The religious right wing has ceased an opportunity to make its presence heard and felt, both by the bullet and by street protests.

The religious and societal fissures that divide and gnaw the country have been portrayed as glaringly indicative of an ominous future of destruction and calamity beyond any redemption or salvation.

But Pakistan would lurch forward, stumbling and crouching at every step, as it has in its history, defying the prophets of gloom and doom, but giving no solace to soothsayers hopeful of any betterment and improvement.

This predictable and uncomfortable equilibrium, where things momentarily shake and boil, burn and simmer and yet cool down to a turgid amalgam, is where the country finds itself every now and then.

This time it is no different.

There are no crossroads, no matter how many times we write — sometimes excitedly and sometimes ominously — of arriving after every couple of years. There are no revolutions, quietly simmering like molten lava, underneath the discontent of those deprived and exploited. There are no messiahs emerging from those who lead and have led, for their own lives are insulated and removed, their slogans as empty and as shallow as the howls and growls of extremist militants.

Pakistani society is neither represented by those few who appear and bemoan at candlelit vigils, holding coffee cups, nor by the bearded, stick-wielding mullahs, who are orchestrated out of their madrassas in such a disciplined and organised manner that their numbers seem magnified, their impact overpowering.

It is the same society that, at first, sought to embrace a former dictator’s ‘enlightened moderation’ and then used the same idea to ridicule and taint the general, as he started to stumble and appeared close to political perish. It is the same society that has welcomed each march of the army boots with feverish anticipation and wished it to be doomed as soon as the clarions of so-called democracy seem audible and decipherable.

The same democracy — the rule by family dynasties and tribal affiliations — is shunned away for its inevitable and insatiable greed for money and affluence. It is the same society where people clamour against foreign influence and meddling, but act ingratiatingly, submissive to the same powers. It is the same society where wrongs of others are to be cursed, but personal foibles and follies are not only trivial, but forgettable and excusable.

Can change come where each and everyone has embarked on a never-ending endeavor of personal aggrandisement — from those lowest in the social stratum to those in the highest?

The military will continue with its scorn and disdain for the civilians, sometimes manoeuvring behind closed doors, sometimes threatening with the baton and the gun. They are the self-anointed custodians of ‘national security’ and they won’t have anyone else come close to this holy position. The ruling political class will continue to plunder and falter, and, as always, the ideological distinctions of the left and right for political parties will be blurred and sacrificed at the altar of expediency and power.

The stench of the rot is nauseating and noxious, but it has settled deep and firm. The national conscience is inebriated with imperturbable delusions. So the march will continue to hobble along till the thump and thunder of the next big storm.

Published in The Express Tribune, January 19^th,  2011.