A couple of things. For one, the man still known as the prime minister of Pakistan. Honour, of late, has been the subject of some discussion in these columns. Honour when it comes to the honour of the nation, which is staunchly upheld by those who have come to be known as members of the ghairat brigade. How do the adherents to high honour regard Yousaf Raza Gilani? Is he a man of honour? Does he represent the honour of the nation?

If he does, then we are really down in the pits. The general consensus, in this country and in those countries which follow the doings (and undoing) of Pakistan, is that a man holding the position of prime minister and convicted by the highest court of his land for contempt of that court should have done the honourable thing and resigned, rather than celebrate his conviction.

Totally putting aside honour, not only did he stick it out but he took off for London on May 8, with a planeload of some 70-odd companions. Now, should a nation somewhat obsessed with ghairat be represented by a man who is technically and de jure a convict? Obviously no one cares back home and the British prime minister seemingly also cares a whit, though no doubt, he had a quiet snigger at Gilani’s predicament. However, the ostensible purpose of the trip was a one hour meeting on May 10 with David Cameron during which mainly trade was discussed (remember Napoleon and his quip about the nation of shopkeepers).

Some of our more naive citizens have even gone so far as to query the fact that Cameron chose to receive Gilani. But what else could he do? The man remains, however shakily, the prime minister of a commonwealth country. And besides, other citizens shrug off the query with the response that for two decades Britain has kept and sheltered and given citizenship to Altaf Bhai, previously of Karachi, now of London Town. Reportedly, Cameron amazingly “affirmed that PM Gilani was working to strengthen democracy in Pakistan.”

The truly low point of the trip was Gilani’s interview with Becky Anderson of CNN during which he evaded any straight answer to the questions put to him. When asked why he had not resigned when convicted by his Supreme Court his response was, mocking the conviction and the court, stating that what he had done was strictly according to the constitution. Much has justifiably been made of his disgraceful comment on being asked why according to a recent poll one in five Pakistanis were keen to leave for greener pastures. His democratic smug view is that they should leave — “who is stopping them?” How does that fit in with the honour of the country or of the man?

For seconds, having discussed trade, economic growth and development, does he have any idea of how fares the economy of his country? On May 15, the national press carried three columns written by commentators on the state of Pakistan’s economy — Shahid Kardar’s “Back in the IMF’s parlour”, Maleeha Lodhi’s “Economics of elections”, and Meekal Ahmed on “A grim prognosis”.

A quote from the first: “[The Americans] have reconciled to the reality that . . . . . . we are not willing to transform ourselves and prefer to remain in the ICU, while the rest of even South Asia . . . . . . . bypasses us. That we as a nation are content to bump along at the bottom.”

From the second: “There are unmistakable signs now of a gathering economic storm in the absence of tough policy measures that the government simply will not take before elections.”

And from the third: “. . .the Pakistan economy is set for at least another year of financial instability with all its adverse economic and social consequences.”

Published in The Express Tribune, May 19^th, 2012.

Is Pakistan’s prime minister a convict? It would seem so. Does he care? It would seem not. As has been mooted now for years, when it comes to leaderships suffered by this unfortunate country, there are no possibilities of shaming the shameless. They have the hide of hardened rhinos, impenetrable.

As Justice Asif Saeed Khosa of the Supreme Court, waxing lyrical, put it in his separate note to the detailed verdict of the contempt case against the prime minister convicting him, when adding his own “Pity the nation” stanzas to those of Khalil Gibran: “Pity the nation whose leaders seek martyrdom through disobeying the law [rather] than giving sacrifices for the glory of law and who see no shame in crime. Pity the nation that is led by those who laugh at the law little realising that the law shall have the last laugh”.

Well, the law has not often had the last laugh in this pitiful democracy and as things are going it seems that in the present case it may be denied to some extent. For the moment, Mr Gilani is not exhibiting the slightest bit of remorse. He flew off to London on the day the verdict was released with his band of chosen many, again, during his flight jibing at the court with the remark: “Why should I fear those who are against the Constitution?” He has learnt nothing, but then he is no stranger to convictions having been convicted in 2001 by an anti-corruption court.

He is also no stranger to the convoluted political games played in this country. He, like most of those who occupy positions of political power, is very much yesterday’s man. His political career took off in 1978 when he joined the Central Working Committee of the PML, together with Nawaz Sharif — 34 years ago! In 1985, he was ‘elected’ to General Ziaul Haq’s Majlis-e-Shoora. Admittedly, he didn’t last too long and switched over to the PPP, whether ideologically or expediently motivated. He successfully contested the 1988 elections and was rewarded with his first ministry — that of tourism.

So he is neither, obviously we would assume, devoid of grey cells or of experience. They are both, in his case, misdirected and misguided. And this is the case with all of yesterday’s men who cling on and on, carrying on in their own merry way regardless of any consequences or of the mockery they make of democracy and their country.

In functioning democracies, men and women come and go with the times and with their abilities. When they have served their time, they make way for new blood. Not so in this pitiful nation in which positions of power are deemed to be a ‘right’ by the followers of slain leaders. There is no giving way. Justice Khosa, this time using Gibran’s words, put it well: “Pity the nation whose sages are dumb with years and whose strong men are yet in the cradle”.

The problem is that in our dynastic form of politics even the cradles are suspect. The offspring of the large majority of yesterday’s men, those who have managed to wangle their way in and out of power for over three decades, are hovering in the wings, awaiting their turn. So what price, fresh, new untainted blood? We have before us the examples of the sons of our convicted prime minister. And of course, what passes for the opposition has its own share of progeny whose acts of commission have not exactly endeared it to those citizens who are convinced that unless the leadership undergoes a radical sea change, this country can never emerge from its bog of corruption, mendacity, and sheer incompetence.

Published in The Express Tribune, May 12^th, 2012.

Well, if ever there was a whimper when a bang was expected, it was heard loud and clear in Islamabad on April 26. All seemed cut and dried but then, in this country, nothing ever is. Personal and political whims rule the national roost — constitution or no constitution, judiciary or no judiciary.

On February 13, a charge sheet against the prime minister of the federation was read out in the Supreme Court: “You, Yousaf Raza Gilani, the prime minister of Pakistan, have willfully flouted and disobeyed the direction given by this Court … and therefore, you committed contempt of court … We hereby direct that you be tried by this Court on above said charge (sic.)”.

No need to repeat the direction, though many may be forgiven for forgetting it as it all happened over two and a half years ago, during which period both Court and prime minister dragged their respective feet.

On April 26, the Court sprang to life — as headlined in the press it was ‘D-Day’, ‘The moment of reckoning’, the ‘PM to face justice’, and ‘All eyes on Supreme Court’. Well, according to the learned brethren of the Bench “the contempt committed … tends to bring this Court and the judiciary of the country into ridicule”. Fair enough and by and large, apart from the party in power, all could not but agree. “… As regards the sentence to be passed against the convict we note that the findings and conviction for contempt of court … ”. It was duly noted, then in the space of 32 seconds the ‘system’ was saved and preserved and presumably justice was done.

Was the ‘convict’ chastised? Not a bit. He was jubilant, as were what are known as his supporters, his bank of merry party people. Adding to the former two-and-a-half-year long ridicule were the rose petals flung in joyous jubilation and down in the prime ministerial home town, the heroic legal fraternity, staunch upholders of the independence of the judiciary, reportedly ‘performed’ bhangra and distributed sweets. The post-sentencing behaviour of deluded men who seem destined never to grow up, devoid of dignity or decorum, certainly did little in international eyes to lessen whatever ridicule had been heaped upon the country by the prolonged clash between two of the pillars that are in place to uphold the dignity, integrity and what have you, of the federation.

What was it that the Court ‘noted’? Well, only an article of the Constitution, which states that a person stands disqualified from being a member of parliament if “he has been convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction for … acting in any manner prejudicial to … the integrity or independence of the judiciary of Pakistan or which defames or brings into ridicule the judiciary … ”. In which case, the Speaker of the National Assembly is required to refer “any question” that may arise as to the disqualification of a member to the election commission with 30 days, whereafter the election commission will decide the matter within 90 days.

What is the betting that the Constitution will be flouted again? The prime minister maintained that by writing the letter as ordered he would be acting unconstitutionally, thereby directly implying that the Supreme Court itself was in conflict with the Constitution by ordering him to act unconstitutionally. And the Constitution itself is a mass of confusion of conflicting articles.

The prime minister, it seems, intends to remain prime minister regardless of courts, constitutions or even convention. He is where he is because his boss and co-chairman of his party wants him there.

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

Pakistan is always at odds with itself given the leaderships to which it has been, and still is, subjected. For geographical and strategic reasons, its relationship with the world has been fraught with instability –– mirroring the instability of its internal political, economic and social state, with all the pillars of state (as they are erroneously known in this case).

One most important relationship is, of course, with itself –– rent asunder by the various egos and haymakers in the many powerhouses. But it has never been able to live in isolation from the outside world. To keep itself afloat it has needed, from the outset, the support and assistance of what is now the sole superpower, the USA.

Way back in February 1948, founder and first governor-general Mohammad Ali Jinnah, when accepting the credentials of the first American envoy, remarked: “I am glad to learn that Your Excellency and the great country and people you represent will give your cooperation to us in order to advance our economic and cultural relations for the mutual benefit of both countries. I am hopeful that the good relationship and friendship already existing between the peoples of America and Pakistan will be further strengthened and the bonds of friendship between our two countries will be more firmly riveted.”

Prior to the ending of 1947, America had already received a plea from Jinnah for “cooperation” to advance Pakistan’s economy –– in other words, for hard cash. Just as it was in the beginning, so it was ever after. As for bonds of friendship, well they have been there and then they have not been there and when absent, Pakistan has ignored reality and given to moaning and groaning about being left high and dry. It has never been able to admit to being in a position to be happily estranged from its main benefactor, frequently caught in a quandary of basically its own making.

Enduring commitment is not part of the American make-up. They have attempted to learn from and absorb the words of their first president, statesman and general, George Washington, who in his farewell address to his nation in 1796 laid down its future policy:

“‘Tis our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronising infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maximum no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But in my opinion, it is unnecessary, and would be unwise, to extend them.

“Taking care always to keep ourselves, by suitable establishments, in a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.

“Harmony, and a liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favours or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying, by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing, with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants and to enable the government to support them, conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary, and liable to be, from time to time, abandoned or varied, as experience and circumstance shall dictate; constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favours from another; that it must pay, with a portion of its independence, for whatever it may accept…”

Published in The Express Tribune, April 28^th, 2012.

On April 17, the defence committee of the cabinet (with a little unrevealed nudging from those whose business is the defence of Pakistan?) apparently concluded that the current stand-off with the mighty US is drawing to its close. “Negotiations on new terms and conditions for resumption of the ground lines of communication (more commonly referred to as Nato supply routes), joint counterterrorism cooperation, greater inter-agency coordination, transparency in US diplomatic and intelligence footprints in Pakistan, strengthening of border security and non-use of Pakistan’s territory for attacks on other countries and expulsion of all foreign fighters from Pakistan’s territory are our fundamental policy parameters.”

Thus, stated the mouthpiece of the co-chairman of the party in power, the non-letter writing prime minister. Obviously eminently sensible, for one has to be the same height as an opponent to be able to face-off — all a bit stupid if one must bend backwards to be able to look the other in the eye. And a self-recognition of strength and size is a safe course to adopt. The question of need also arises.

Without US support where stands the Pakistan military? And, let’s face it, without the US how would the co-chairman of the ruling party doubling as head of state, fare? He’d be more terrified out of his wits about his safety than he is said to be right now.

Self-preservation is the name of the game when it comes to individuals who now, through a twist of fate, wield power. And it follows that the preservation of the country is in their interests, though they have made a complete mess on that score, what with Balochistan out of their control and the same is the case with the wild and woolly north-western borderlands. Their ineptitude stretches a long way — all the way down from Khyber to Karachi.

Honour and sovereignty are all very well, when they exist. The latter is a myth, perpetrated by a string of rulers who have come and gone and those still with us. The word is used to cover up what is bowing and scraping, such is the condition of this country in which economic and political institutions stand eroded. As for honour, of all who now have a say, does one truly honourable individual spring to mind? All one has to do is switch on the television and click one’s way through the channels to gain first-hand experience of ‘honour’ — it does not even exist amongst thieves in this land said to be of the pure. ‘Honour killings’, oh yes, they come aplenty.

Ok, ok, the US ‘needs’ Pakistan, at the moment. But is Pakistan’s need of the US not somewhat of a greater nature? Should Pakistan be a friend or an enemy of the US? If it is the latter option, would that serve what we take as our much-vaunted though sadly inadequate national sovereignty, to which we so loosely lay claim to without bothering to ponder as to whether we are right now in any position to approach true sovereignty?

For sure, Pakistan, or for that matter any country, needs to be wary of one sole factor when it comes to friendship or any sort of relationship with the mighty US, and that is the historical instability of a relationship, friendship, call it what you may. Over the years, it has had its highs and lows, as is the norm, for America is far more preoccupied with its ‘national interest’ on the international front than is this country.

From the days of its first president, the US has unequivocally maintained that it can afford neither permanent friends nor permanent enemies. So when our leaderships moan and groan about being left in the lurch, they should contemplate about this.

Published in The Express Tribune, April 21^st, 2012.

“Why the Siachen issue must be resolved”, was the title of an editorial published in The Express Tribune on April 10, three days after 138 citizens of Pakistan were buried under an avalanche on the world’s largest glacier, barring those of the polar caps — 78 kilometers in length standing at an altitude of 5,400 meters above sea level.

Why this must be resolved is surely because it is the most senseless and futile conflict currently taking place in this conflict-ridden world, with two sides fighting over an uninhabited area, a killing ice field that has claimed thousands of lives of each side’s troops. Apparently, neither India nor Pakistan ever publicly release their respective loss of lives, a loss which the experts put at almost 4,000 troops since — ludicrously — 1984 when it became one more bone of contention over which the two neighbours ceaselessly scrap, spending millions (or is it billions?) of rupees each day stupidly facing off against each other.

There is a solution which could be arrived at if both sides were to put aside their stubbornness and stupidity and see sense over this no-man’s land where international borders have not been defined by the UN-sponsored 1948 ceasefire that ended the first of the wars waged by the two countries that seemingly have no concept of what is good for their people.

Over the years, sensible men have held their heads in their hands bemoaning the sheer absurdity of the Siachen conflict. Now that this latest tragedy has struck, perhaps the matter will again be raised. The concept of a Peace Park at Siachen was first put forward by the Indian environmentalist and mountaineer, Aamir Ali in 1994, when mountaineers from India and Pakistan met in Switzerland to mobilise support for the park.

In 2008, Indian and Pakistani glaciologists established a detailed plan for research partnerships that could facilitate the establishment of the park and in 2009, representatives of both countries met in Norway to discuss the matter. Naturally, the discussion turned towards the intense pollution — human waste, medical waste, guns, arms and ammunition, shells, fuel containers and so forth — in the area. Now, uncountable tonnes of garbage are dumped into crevasses, which eventually flow into the water supply upon which millions of Pakistanis depend. Also discussed were the glacial melt from global warming and the military competition hastening the glacier’s demise. Glacial ice is routinely cut and melted and both sides use chemicals — Siachen, apart from being the world’s largest, is also its fastest retreating glacier. Not an environmental situation to be devoutly wished for.

Reportedly, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, at one time, expressed hope that the region would become a “peace mountain”. Also reportedly, Siachen was discussed at the brief meeting held between Mr Singh and the president of Pakistan in New Delhi on April 9 — but probably not in the context of a peace park. Standing in the way are the politicians and the armies of both sides.

In our national press, dateline Karachi April 8, was a news item under the headline “Plea to turn Siachen into peace park”. The item reported that a body known as the Pakistan Peace Coalition has seen sense on the matter. But who will join hands with this organisation? The world has 170 such parks — let this wasteful and destructive stand-off over a stretch of wasteland, the possession of which cannot benefit the people of either country, cease. The Siachen ecosystem recognises no national borders.

Stephen Cohen of Brookings wrote on the Siachen conflict in the Wall Street Journal of 1999: “[It] might be thought of as just another low intensity border war — were it not being fought between the world’s two newest nuclear powers. This combat over a barren, uninhabited nether world of questionable strategic value is a forbidding symbol of their lingering irreconcilability. [It is like] a struggle of two bald men over a comb … the epitome of the worst aspects of their relationship.”

Published in The Express Tribune, April 14^th, 2012.

They termed it a ‘day of mourning,’, on three days last week in Karachi. ‘Mourning in this particular political parlance indicates not a spell of grieving, but a foray into extreme violence. ‘Mourning’, ‘strike’, provoke the same action — killings and arson. And who and what are the main perpetrators? Well, it is not de rigueur to admit what we all think we know for fear of reprisal but truly as far as Karachi is concerned, in all incidents of violence the political parties that make up the Sindh government coalition are the prime movers and shakers.

The start of it all was a political party “worker’s” murder, reportedly undertaken by gangsters from the Lyari district. Whatever or whoever, the killings that followed and the destruction of vehicles that took place cannot in any way be justified nor can the fact that this city shut itself down completely out of sheer fear.

‘Workers’ of some political parties can be knocked off without any tangible consequence. However, the same cannot be said for other parties because in such cases the city experiences a debilitating strike. By the same token, a couple of parties can issue strike calls and the results are comparatively negligible in comparison with those that have to merely mention the word ‘strike’ and the citizens of Karachi respond within minutes, many scurrying to the safety of their homes.

Fear predominates as it did on the three days last week, at a cost, so the experts say, of a couple of billion rupees loss to the economy each day. The main sufferers are, of course, those on daily wages, but who cares, they are mere members of the great unwashed with no clout at all. On the first ‘day of mourning’ schools shut down mid-morning and children were whisked away, driven home in trepidation, which cannot be doing them any psychological good. Markets and shops pull down their shutters, public transport disappears before it is subjected to arson — all cooperating fully in the ‘mourning’ process whilst for days, individuals are gunned down and scores of vehicles set on fire.

Quite unfortunate and in fact absurd is what happens when, after a strike, in which lives have been lost and millions of rupees worth of damage is done to private and public property, one hears of phrases like a “successful strike” being bandied about in the media. Surely, the primary reason for such a strike being ‘successful’ is that people rather be safe than sorry and do not want to risk going out of their homes and risking their lives.

On International Women’s Day, this publication printed the story of the 1985 accidental death of a college student Bushra Zaidi, which led to a mammoth spell of ‘mourning’, of violence and turmoil in Karachi. Since then, over two decades ago, the political parties have waged their turf wars at the city’s expense, directing Karachi’s moods and swings with its countless days of ‘mourning’ and strikes’.

A new phenomenon was born in 2008, when sectarian strife and inter-party rivalry reached its peak with slayings galore, and the term ‘target killings’ was coined. They continue, whether sectarian or inter-party, the Sindh government washing its hands of all responsibility, aided and abetted by the members of the irresponsible coalition.

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

On the eve of the day that marks the arrival of spring, the sovereign righteous parliament of the Islamic Republic (consisting of what percentage of legitimate members?) was huffing and puffing over what have been described as ‘key recommendations’ — or rather, in the local lingo ‘demands’, all 16 of them — to be implemented so that Pakistan and the US could resume their beautiful friendship. That same day, the US ambassador was holding forth in Peshawar, and the White House in Washington was echoing statements that had come forth from the State Department.

One must suppose that in 64 years of any friendship, beautiful, or otherwise, there have to be ups and downs, as has indeed been the case with the US and its somewhat leech-like pal, Pakistan. What must be remembered is that it was in 1947, soon after the birth of the country, that founder-maker Mohammad Ali Jinnah, leader of a nation with few assets to its name, approached the US and sought its help to boost its finances. Thus began the relationship — one of dependence. After Jinnah’s death, Liaquat Ali Khan furthered requests for financial and material assistance and thus the pattern was set.

US Ambassador Cameron Munter, expanding to the press, was pretty clear on the fact that “none of the things you mention are gonna be easy”, and that the US had waited patiently for four months for Pakistan to carry out its ‘review’. He explained that no assistance programme could ‘fix’ Pakistan as “Pakistan had to fix Pakistan”. And, pointedly, he said that can only be done through “honest and competent leadership”.

Well, that put paid to that for the time being. So now where does one go from here? Honestly, the present leadership? No way. Its corruption record has outstripped its predecessors’ and that is truly saying something. There is no such thing as honesty — at least it is nowhere visible — in any strata of the leadership of Pakistan. Rumours abound about the money raked in from the national exchequer by not only the top layer, but by their relatives and hangers-on, rumours which cannot be put down to flights of fancy.

As for competence — well, the fact that it is universally admitted that this country has no governance, that large areas are bereft of the writ of the government and are virtually no go tracts of land, makes it abundantly evident that competence is a word unknown to the present leadership, of whatever hue.

The White House took a different tack, laying stress on the “critical national security priorities that we continue to pursue . . . areas where we believe we have common goals with Pakistan”. A solid reason for the US’ interest in Pakistan is “the role that Pakistan plays in our efforts to achieve our objectives in Afghanistan”. The US is “very clear about what our objectives are in terms of American national security interests”.

Well, US interests are paramount and let it never be forgotten that it has from its inception been clear on its foreign policy — no permanent friends, no permanent enemies. Supreme rules the national interest. So gung-ho Pakistanis would do well to reflect upon this fact when making ‘demands’. This country is not exactly in a good shape, in any way; politically, economically or stability-wise.

It may have geography on its side but that also, at times, becomes irrelevant, as it did when the USSR pulled out of Afghanistan. Pakistan has since then moaned and groaned to the US about how it was cruelly abandoned and left to its own devices. The US needs Pakistan now, as it admits, during the run-up to its withdrawal from Afghanistan. What happens after it is all over?

There is no level playing field.

Published in The Express Tribune, March 24^th, 2012.

Well, here we are — or at least we seem to be — settling in for a long spell of renewed non-governance by a government which takes no pains to hide its contempt for the awam (claimed to be ‘beloved’) or for the institutions of state.

All things being equal as of right now, the strange form of democracy put in place by the co-chairman of the ruling party seems destined to continue on and on. Asif Ali Zardari’s twist of fate in 2007 fell upon him like a bolt from the heavens and he has certainly utilised it splendidly and to the full, for his own particular purposes. Streetwise and street-smart, he has outwitted most of his opponents, or at best, kept them at bay as in the case of the mighty military.

By keeping somewhat mum he has kept himself in favour with the US, which is hard-pressed to even contemplate (at least momentarily), let alone find a suitable replacement. The Imran Khan surge, sporadic and selective, was far from the boasted of tsunami. Where is it now and more importantly, where will it be when Zardari decides and announces the most propitious dates for the next round of general elections?

The Zardari government, its amendments to the constitution notwithstanding — though they were all based on boosting the party and those sitting in the powerhouse seats rather than having any effect upon the tenuous lives of the ‘beloved awam’ — will be in full control. The voters, the minority of the millions, have not changed. Their mindset, habits and ability to be bought are as settled as is the PPP and its co-chairman. So, realistically, what are the odds on a ‘change’ — that most used word these days — or a ‘revolution’ as predicted by the hopeful? Rather dismal would one not say?

So, barring some unforeseen act of God (many may opt for the word miracle) this state of non-governance will be with us for an unforeseeable future — a dim prospect for many. The Taliban will continue to have the run of the wild woolly north western areas where no writ of government prevails. They happily blow up people at funerals, as they did on March 11, outside Peshawar, killing 16 — an incident that largely passed unremarked upon by our non-governing government because it was too busy consolidating itself in the Senate and elsewhere.

The Taliban bomb schools and indulge in target killings on almost a daily basis — accepted seemingly by provincial and federal governments as an established way of life. The American withdrawal from Afghanistan, which has to happen one day will but strengthen their hand. And Balochistan, to all intents and purposes can it be called a unit of the federation today?

But who cares? Very few, the public sector is obsessed with raking in as much as it can individually and collectively and those of the private sector are either desperately attempting to eke out a living or, in the minority, indulging in the worst form of consumerism.

The two main sects will continue in their destructive path, killing and maiming each other and doing the same to those classified as the minorities. The blasphemy laws will be used by anyone seeking revenge (as this democracy wreaks its vengeance upon the state), they will remain untouchable by a frightened cowardly bunch of legislators, and the laws against women will remain in place conflicting with whatever mitigating legislation is passed. And acid — bang next to a photograph of Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy arriving back in Karachi was a news item headed “Angry man throws acid on wife”, dateline: Vehari, March 10.

Oh yes, and an agency report has it that president cum co-chairman remarked upon hearing about Obaid-Chinoy’s Oscar that her film had sent a strong message to the world about Pakistan’s softer image.

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

“I relayed the news on to colleagues and students at the cafeteria table. Some looked glumly at their plates but, a minute or two later, normal cheerful chatter resumed.” So wrote friend Pervez Hoodbhoy in this newspaper on March 5, in an op-ed titled “Run for your life”.

What was the news? That those men, who claim to be good Muslims, of the terrorist outfit Jundullah, had on February 28 executed 18 men, who had been cruelly dragged off a bus in Kohistan after being singled out because of their sect.

That such incidents rouse no ire, nor disgust, nor even interest, in the supposedly-educated youth of this country, should make us pause and think. So embedded is violence in the national psyche, including that of whatever leadership it is the country’s fate to bear. The leadership itself is so disinterested in mass or individual killings, by Muslims of Muslims, that it barely comments on Kohistan-type happenings. It takes all in its stride, whilst happily marching to its own brass band, blatantly consolidating its power base and cramming its well-lined pockets with lavish pickings from the national exchequer and what is left of the nation’s assets. It is not concerned with the slaying of its citizens by its citizens, so why should the rest react any differently?

Well they should, but by many a strange, unhealthy quirk it has become fully acceptable for Muslim to slay Muslim — all in the name of a misguided interpretation of faith — as acceptable as it apparently is in this odd, hard country for Muslims to take the lives of those they consider to be non-Muslims, rendered so by law or by actual fact.

Kohistan-type murders — as with past sectarian murders — trigger no official or public outcry, or public demonstrations of anger. Burning tyres, flags and effigies is fine, as is official indignation when it comes to Salala or the drone attacks. Something is very wrong and is growing worse by the day, as neither our leadership, nor those who apply the education system consider it to be a national trait in need of urgent attention. As long as religion intrudes into matters of state, Pakistan is doomed. It has closed the door firmly on its Founder’s dictum : “Religion has nothing to do with the business of the state.”

A day prior to the Kohistan murders, Pakistan came up trumps on the other side of the world. Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy walked off with an Oscar for her documentary film “Saving Face”. What was the subject of this award-winning film? Why, violence of course, as perpetrated in the Islamic Republic. The custom of disfiguring women in revenge for some perceived slight by throwing acid in their faces. Thousands worldwide, who would otherwise have been unaware of this national practice, will have seen the film. What would have been their reaction? So, now we have even more black marks against habits prevalent in this violence-prone land.

And such happenings are far from isolated. Many more acid-throwing incidents surely take place than are actually reported. The latest reported incident came from Sahiwal. On March 6 — less than 10 days after the Oscar ceremony — a man attacked a 20-year-old girl, chucking acid on her face, merely because she had ‘resisted his advances’.

This government to its credit has come up with legislation meant to protect women, but legislation alone can do nothing unless the national mindset is radically adjusted. Legislation is good and laudable, but rather like court orders. Courts can order away, but cannot enforce their orders. And parliament may legislate, but it is helpless when it comes to applying the law.

On March 3, we had another incident involving the attitude to women when in Muzaffargarh district, following an inter-family feud, a mob stripped naked one woman and proudly marched her around the village. Such are the mores and morals of the average Pakistani male of this nation of 180 million.

Published in The Express Tribune, March 10^th, 2012.