This election day, I will have travelled to Peshawar to cast my vote for Imran Khan and the PTI. At the same time, I must admit I will be happy at the possibility of the PML-N forming a government if it wins, largely because what this country needs now, more than anything, is improved governance, because over the past few years, it has gone from decrepit to decaying through neglect, creating nightmare scenarios one couldn’t entertain in the past.

I have penned articles heavily critical of Imran Khan previously, and troublingly for me, most of my objections haven’t changed despite my decision to vote for him now. His stance on the Taliban is woefully misguided and naïve, even dangerous, because consensus against the extremists cannot solidify until the sympathisers cave in.

But the mathematics of arguments such as this has changed significantly, especially post the APC on terrorism. The ruling parties who believe the “right” things regarding this violent perversion of violence have been so ineffectual, muddled, corrupt and meandering that outfits like the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi and the Taliban have flourished. The binary being bandied about between corruption and terrorism doesn’t hold if the corruption being spoken of is so pervasive, that when coupled with weak leadership, it creates comfortable conditions for this murderous lot.

The truth is, I would have liked nothing better than to vote for the PPP again in this election. The presence of this party is vital to Pakistan, being one of the few parties that is truly national in nature. Even though it doesn’t want to, it’s in its best interests to sit a next term in government out. It is essential for it to reorganise and reflect on its term in government, and give Bilawal a more prominent role in the party, one of the only ways in which to change the old school approach of Asif Ali Zardari in the party.

But back to the PTI, I did come to admire Imran on two fronts recently, the first of which was to hold elections within the party. As most observers will tell you, it wasn’t a good move. It divided his party close to the elections. But still on principle, kudos to him for going ahead with it; it’s essential to democracy. The second was his statements post the ongoing slaughter of Shias in the country.

I don’t think Imran will get the landslide he wants. But it’s important for the PTI to win seats in parliament because the energised non-voters need to remain invested in the system. Plus, he will be able to exert influence on the government for some of the better ideas he has, such as the reformation of the development funds given to parliamentarians.

An ideal scenario would be for the PML-N and the PTI to form a coalition. Right now, that seems unlikely, but this is where they can learn a trick or two from Zardari. However dismal the PPP’s performance, credit to it for keeping it together through five tumultuous years. Who knows, maybe a marriage between the PTI and the PML-N eventually takes hold; Imran has demonstrated a previously unknown gift for accommodation with the MQM and Sheikh Rasheed recently.

While the PTI’s influence in the electoral scene will really be known in a few days, where it has been disproportionately influential is bandying the anti-West, and indirectly, the pro-Taliban narrative in the country, forcing others not to take a clear position in the opposite direction. We are seeing its effects now in the manner in which the canvassing of the PPP, the MQM and the ANP have been targeted. Sadly, the PTI has taken advantage of the situation rather than condemn it.

Our existentialist dilemma on whether or not to take action against the Taliban can only really coagulate into decisive action if Imran changes his romanticised view of the TTP. We may just have to tolerate the “doves” and go for negotiations. Hopefully that will end the fantasy and bring all the parties together to the conclusion that religious nihilists don’t want anything except utter destruction.

Where Imran Khan does deserve credit has been his tireless campaigning, and it was in the immediate aftermath of his fall and speech from his sickbed that one truly realised the conviction of his efforts. We need conviction now, not just from him but from every other political party as well. Hopefully this election will turn the tide against the entities that truly have demonstrated conviction — the militants.

Published in The Express Tribune, May 11^th, 2013.

Cracking jokes at a funeral wouldn’t go down well. It’s misjudging the audience entirely. It seems that the PPP has been doing just that recently, unable to gauge the mood of Pakistan.

The PPP’s grand narrative has always been that it’s a victim of a non-representative establishment, that its sacrifices can be measured in its blood spilled. There is, of course, a lot of truth to this. It also partly explains why it is such a good party when it sits in the opposition benches; it fits perfectly into the persuasive argument that it has been victimised because it champions the voiceless.

This falls apart when it is in government, especially this time around. The PPP is given to making noises about being the victim, even now as it’s a powerful entity with a pacified army and an ineffectual but needling Supreme Court. It rings hollow when one has a majority in parliament and the vast dispensation of the government at its disposal.

Of course, one of the reasons it chooses to keep parroting the victim line is to preempt moves by the army and the judiciary. In so far as that is concerned, it’s a valid strategy given their partisanship. But the line the party pushes to the electorate to shore support against the possible moves of those two organs of state is not easily delineated from its poor record of governance, which in fact aggravates voters.

To the lower and middle classes, it becomes a case of heightened cognitive dissonance when the most powerful element of society in government claims to be the underdog. It’s putting the elites in the verbal garb of the working classes — but the language is weak and skimpy, revealing too much.

While the army and the Supreme Court continue to pick their battles with the government, the fact is that they are relatively circumspect in playing an absolute endgame and this is an advantage for the PPP. The two institutions seem to know that the era for explicitly bringing down the dispensation of democracy is over at least for now, if not forever.

While the PPP battles moves against it by the forces and the judiciary, this should be no excuse for its appallingly poor record of governance and of running the country. In its interactions with the media or the public, the PPP comes across as addicts to ad hocism, bereft of any real strategy. Their two main articulations, ‘democracy is the best revenge’ and ‘reconciliation’, are not indicative of any grand vision. In fact, reconciliation remains the more widely abused term of the two. The PPP has used it to justify the wide berth and low standards expected of their legislators and coalition partners.

While the party remains true to form as a progressive party not given to the emotional mumbo jumbo of the nationalists, it is in government at a time when there have been atrocious incidents against minorities and continuing bouts of sectarian violence. The PPP is not moving decisively partly because it does not want to anger the army, somewhat pacified by extensions. The PPP is not abducting the Baloch, but it is watching it happen and doing nothing to stop it.

Because of the preeminence of the victimhood doctrine, the Peoples Party has been poor in championing successes it has had. In its extraordinarily difficult first two years of its current term, which would have crippled any other government, there has been a relative stabilisation in security and the economy, or at the very least, the seemingly breakneck downward spiral has slowed. Whether this stabilisation can be attributed solely to the party being at the helm is another question altogether.

In the media, the PPP does enjoy one luxury and that is support in some quarters largely because the other option — doing away with democracy — is untenable. That said, the victimhood doctrine preempts the necessary evaluation that could be posed by a legitimate critique of poor performance which is sidetracked by questioning the motives of those making the criticism.

Despite all of this, at this stage it looks like the PPP will be assured another term thanks to a perfect storm of variables in its favour. One, the PTI and the PML-N are more focused against each other than the incumbents and two, the PPP is likely to use this budget as a populist tool. A last push to appease voters through better governance doesn’t seem to be on the cards, and if the PPP is voted in the next time round it won’t bode well because to its leadership, this will appear as if incompetence has been rewarded. Be it railways, electricity, law and order, the list is endless.

The fact is, the PPP needs to lose this election. First for the country, they need to get their act together and the only spur to that would be voters expressing disenchantment. Second, it needs to survive as a party because of its comparatively national nature. Compelling as the idea may be to its leadership, the steam engine of government does not run on empty rhetoric. The unprecedented rise in poverty can only be stemmed with a strong government that has vision, not one that thinks printing money is a solution.

Rather than listening to the blunderbuss that is Rehman Malik and others, the party could do well to pay heed to Bashir Bilour, who said at a cabinet meeting, “Forget about the next elections if you keep providing people an excuse to burn effigies of politicians in protest against 16-18 hours of power cuts.” Exactly.

Published In The Express Tribune, June 6^th, 2012. 

In the past it has been pejoratively said that dual nationality is like polygamy with citizenship. While heated debates about dual nationality are now rarer, they were at their most acrimonious during the height of the Cold War largely because of fears about the loyalty of dual nationals and their potential for espionage and worse.

It’s interesting that the Supreme Court has invoked that argument in the recent suspension of Farahnaz Ispahani’s National Assembly membership on charges that she holds US citizenship, and the Court is also trying to determine whether Rehman Malik has actually renounced his British citizenship.

The first question we need to answer is, does this matter? Research done in America on Latinos suggests that dual nationals are less likely to participate in local elections, to be involved in two separate political systems is taxing leading to less involvement overall. That, of course, does not suggest that they are not valued members of their communities in either of their countries of nationality, but simply that they engage less with the political process. The research is not exhaustive I must caution, it isn’t conclusive.

So one could argue that dual nationality makes a nation less better off when it comes to political participation. But we need to keep in mind the enormous benefits of allowing people to have dual nationalities. We are dependent on foreign remittances; they provide us foreign exchange and tend to be a cushion against fidgety capital. Our workforce abroad needs protection and nationality acquisition is a good hedge for the individual and Pakistan itself. The EU is a good case of individual member nation’s subjects who are citizens (albeit loosely) of a larger confederation itself, a move made in part to develop better, fluid markets. In any case, with greater mobility, the concept of dual nationality is something countries will have to come to accept.

But we aren’t discussing average citizens here, so we move to the question at hand: should legislators be allowed to have dual nationality? No major country that I know of allows a dual national to hold high office. And Pakistan doesn’t as well, and it shouldn’t.

The reasons for that need not be as insidious as potential treason. First, there is the issue of equity — it gives some people double representation. Second, it creates ease of flight, and when holding political office that is the last thing that should be open to someone. Third, there are genuine reasons where dual nationalities for legislators can create conflicts of interest, especially between countries like the US and Pakistan whose purposes are not always aligned.

Academically, there is no evidence to suggest that there is more likelihood for a dual national to betray a country than a single nationality holder. But in countries with strong nationalism, like Germany and Pakistan, and security concerns, like America and Pakistan, dual nationality can become a lightning rod issue around the fear that it could create the breeding grounds for duplicity.

In the case of Ms Ispahani, there is definitely an equity issue, since having a foreign citizenship and then taking up a reserved women’s seat in the National Assembly means that it defeats the purpose of women’s seats at the very least. It’s unfortunate that it affects a legislator who is more active and competent than most, but the basic premise of what the Supreme Court did was right. The ruling would be complicated, however, if it turns out that she holds a Green Card (which means no voting rights) and is not a citizen. In that case an argument could be made that it has more to do with residence than accepting the anachronistic oath for citizenship for the US which clearly disqualifies one from being able to serve Pakistan as a member of parliament.

Some countries have laws that prevent spouses or children of legislators from being foreign nationals. In Pakistan, that would mean many of our rabid hawks would have to go, like Chaudry Nisar Ali Khan and a lot of the Jamiat.

Of course, the Supreme Court has not been wholly fair. It should use the same logic to disqualify party leaders who do not hold elected office on the same grounds enunciated for Farahnaz Ispahani.

Published in The Express Tribune, May 29^th, 2012.

Prior to the killing of Osama bin Laden I would have told you that anyone responsible in bringing him down would be an unequivocal hero to the world. Trust Dr Shakil Afridi to make that difficult.

The doctor is back in the news because of the prison sentence of 33 years given to him by the assistant political agent of Khyber Agency for collaborating with the CIA. One would imagine that Pakistan would be happy that a terrorist responsible for the deaths of many Pakistanis and people in general was resting deep with the fishes. But no, our problem was the US incursion of May 2. The calm of having a dangerous terrorist removed never took place because the paranoid feared repeats of the brazen display of US capabilities which shamed the hidden soldiers in our citizens.

In the litany of problems we have with the US, Dr Afridi is one of the footnotes. They want him freed so they can fete him like a hero. Leon Panetta tells us we need to recognise him as a patriot, Senator John McCain expresses his admiration and another US lawmaker wants him to receive a US congressional medal.

And we imprison this man? The truth is that the US is stark raving mad to think that Pakistan would not act against him. He may have helped bring down an abominable man, but his reasons may well be suspect. Dr Afridi imperilled the people who helped him with the vaccination drives, they were unwitting pawns in his larger understanding with the CIA. He caused those health workers to lose their jobs. He hurt the cause of vaccinations, already demonised in this country and especially in that region by madmen drunk with religious fervour.

Most reports seem to suggest that Dr Afridi was not even aware of the target, which means he was ready to toady the Americans and was not exactly cooperating in finding a terrorist. But in this whole drama the truth is that the Americans are the one who sold Dr Afridi down the river.

If they have the top brass in the US now making sympathetic noises to his plight, they had the option of flying him out of the country before the raid took place to bring down OBL. They didn’t. He was caught and the machinery of the security establishment started moving. If he was as important as Leon Panetta suggests, then the US has been a terrible ingrate in leaving the doctor to fend for himself.

But rather than play the irascible child Pakistan’s foreign policy sometimes tends to be, the current actions have been decent realpolitik. A death sentence would have been a mad punishment that would have played into Pakistan’s international demonisation, and it would have been excessive. As it stands 30-plus years is also undue, but it gives the government room to commute his sentence eventually.

While it seems from the fragments we know of Dr Shakil Afridi suggest that he was motivated less by idealism and more by money, the end result is that his actions have made Pakistan better off. The ideal situation would be that he does some time in Pakistan, eventually to be let free to pursue whatever the US has to offer him. He won’t find buyers for his ‘heroics’ here.

All this, of course, is premised on the assumption that his sentencing was just. And it wasn’t. He was tried in Khyber Agency for a crime committed in Abbottabad. The nation has a right to hear his side of the story in the remote hope that this was a man who was listening to his conscience, that he believed there were those in the military complicit in keeping OBL here. Only that would go some way to explain why he did what he did. I doubt that’s the case, but the man deserves his day in court. Pakistan has a right to sentence those spying for other countries, just as Dr Afridi has a right to defend himself. While the US has already given evidence against him by confirming his role, we need to know if there was mitigating circumstances, of which now it seems there is little.

Published in The Express Tribune, May 25^th, 2012.

During World War II, several tribal, pre-industrial societies came into contact with the modern world for the first time. The Japanese and American armies used remote areas of the southwest Pacific Ocean to transport cargo. The natives were in awe of the metal birds that flew in with bounty they had never seen before. And so, when the war was over and the flying routes ceased to be used, these tribals started a particular form of worship to their deities to bring back the precious cargo and its advanced food products.

They believed these products were from the gods who were favouring ‘foreigners’. They used materials available to them to construct symbols of planes, took coconuts and broke them up to resemble radios. While it seems quaint, they were obviously using a very crude form of ‘cause’ and ‘effect’. With the limited education at their disposal, this is how they best understood the world.

It may seem that at least today, the vast majority of the world is beyond this type of behaviour. Well, not really. We have been most famously misled by William Shakespeare in Romeo and Juliet with the words “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” Not true.

Actually a word can taint our understanding of things. Our taste buds, for example, should be able to tell us whether something is sweet, sour or tasty. However, studies show the influence of the name of a product on our perceptions of taste. Even experienced sommeliers, wine experts, can be fooled when blindfolded.

And herein we come to our real problem, that of the most-favoured nation (MFN). The MFN status is a problematic name to begin with and if, one doesn’t know that it is about trade, one can easily assume it has something to do with state friendship. Not only is the name a misnomer, but it presents illogic at its centre in that there cannot be more than one most-favoured nation status, but actually individual states accord this many, many times over to their trading partners.

Members of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) hand out to each other the MFN status. The MFN status is simply according another country equal status, not preferential status as is being presumed. Preferential status is actually called preferential treatment. When they set up the WTO, they really should have invested in a dictionary.

Opening up Pakistan to Indian imports is not without its risks. But it comes with opportunities as well. Unfortunately, the popular debate on the issue is highly politicised, understandable given Pakistan’s history with India. But Jamaatud Dawa need not be part of those influencing the discourse.

In this particular time of increasing international isolation of Pakistan, it is in its best interests to develop trade corridors for itself, rather than strategising itself as a basket case for either the USA or China.

But the MFN misnomer is a powerful one, one we need to address forthrightly if we are to take advantage of the opportunities it can bring, of which fuel and electricity could be critical components. Muddling the context, cause and effect makes us a very different cargo cult.

The prime minister, Yousaf Raza Gilani, knows this and, in a Freudian slip, acknowledged the issue when he flubbed an answer to an interview being conducted by Munizae Jehangir on Express News, “Yes, we have given Most-Favourite Nation status to India.”

Published in The Express Tribune, December 4^th, 2011. 

If there is one phrase that helps sum up the current state of memo-gate, it would be that ‘There are limits to genius, but none to stupidity’. Everything about this sordid affair beggars disbelief, yet it seems to become truer by the day, especially after Mike Mullen’s volte-face on the receipt of the memo.

First Mansoor Ijaz. When he wrote his op-ed for the Financial Times, he blew the lid on an affair he was supposed to conduct in utmost secrecy. In an excellent interview conducted by Barkha Dutt of NDTV, Mansoor explained this by claiming he needed an authentic anecdote for the policy prescription in his article, which was to try and force the disbandment of the ISI-S wing. The same spy agency he was out to destroy, he is now happy to share evidence with.

So, the real reason for the disclosure is he had trouble filling up space in an article he was supposed to write? His other reason for becoming embroiled in this fiasco, according to him, was to serve Pakistan and US interests by ensuring democracy was safe. The very democracy he has now plunged into an existential crisis because, I suppose, he had an editor’s cut-off date to meet.

But, in a piece for Foreign Policy magazine by Josh Robin, Mansoor has a different reason as to why he wrote his op-ed. There he says he wrote the piece to defend Mullen’s treatment at the hands of the Pakistani press, yes you read that right, post his last Congressional testimony where he criticised the ISI.

Mansoor Ijaz didn’t come off well in the NDTV interview. If anything, his “I have powerful friends” spiel would have sounded like shallow name-dropping if the setting was different. But like it or not, he is centre stage in all of this.

Immediately after the OBL raid, most commentators will agree that the armed forces of Pakistan were feeling the sting of severe unpopularity. Unless there is evidence contrary to this that will be made public later, there was no talk of a coup; in fact it was untenable then.

The premise that Pakistan was in danger of another bout of military rule for the memo to be written is incredulous. But, as I said before, world politics is no stranger to stupidity and false premises spearing actions. This is Pakistan’s WMD moment.

Now let’s say for a moment that Husain Haqqani is guilty of writing the memo as alleged. There is very little doubt that it is a treasonous offence, offering another state a unilateral deal of internal policy actions without any legal authority bypasses all codes of conduct.

But, one thing needs to be acknowledged. The gist of the memo, if it were ever to be implemented, would be good for Pakistan. There needs to be a fair enquiry into how OBL remained in Pakistan all this time and anyone found complicit needs to be tried. We need to strike against all militants on our soil, Pakistan is not their oasis. We need to bring down all militant groups who conduct foreign terrorism from Pakistani safe havens, including those who carried out the Mumbai attacks.

The only real problems with the memo are that it offers Americans say into who would be a member of the enquiry commission, confirms Pakistan’s armed forces role in supporting terrorists and makes offers on our nuclear programme. These are, of course, substantial problems.

If we accept the premise that the civilian side in our government was scared of a coup by the army, then it’s really one treason to prevent another. And we would have never gotten to this point if the army was truly subservient to the people of this country and its elected representatives. There is very little doubt who has been calling the shots for some time now.

If, as is now increasingly being spun by Mansoor Ijaz, Haqqani did this on his own without the full knowledge of Zardari, then there is no question the ambassador needs to resign at the very least. But it is a point to ponder that the clamour for resignations is never as strong for those who have been exposed by WikiLeaks as being in bed with the Americans, for the abject failure in PNS Mehran and the total unawares with which they found Americans in Abbottabad.

Is one truly any worse than the other? The civil-military imbalance is out in the open once again. We often criticise this PPP government for its ineptness and corruption and rightly so, as a sham democracy. But I suspect we are really a sham democracy for other reasons.

Published in The Express Tribune, November 22^nd, 2011.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I wonder if this is applicable in the near future to those who intend to vote for the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) and end up with Zardari yet again, their bogeyman personified.

It’s interesting to put the Pakistani elections in the context of the US presidential elections of 2000. The issues of the three-way candidacies of George Bush, Al Gore and Ralph Nader were eclipsed by vote counting problems in Florida, but prior to that the real question in everyone’s minds was Ralph Nader’s pointless candidacy potentially costing Al Gore the presidency.

Ralph Nader was more left-wing than Gore and, to some, more authentic. Nader didn’t have the vote bank to truly contest the presidency, but what he did do was divide the left-wing, giving an edge to George Bush.

That is what a vote for Imran Khan might do. Pull in those who may have been PML-N voters, dividing a sector of the electorate and allowing the PPP to coast through. Inadvertently as it may be, a vote for Imran is a vote for Zardari. Lahore proved wrong a great number of naysayers, including myself, who thought Imran Khan couldn’t pull people out into the streets. Imran has done it, proving that Pakistan has a lot of well-intended people.

Now that the PTI is a genuine force — of what magnitude is still debatable — it will be important to ensure that the goodwill amounts to a good outcome. But good outcomes are harder to come by than good intentions.

It seems good people want a good revolution. The irony is that the most progressive leader of late is Nawaz Sharif — sadly voting for him also means voting for his party, which is still conservatively reactionary. But he has been saying some extraordinary things for some time now, about the need for the subjugation of the military to the civilians, about self-reflection, about withstanding the urge to blame everyone else but ourselves for the problems we face and about dealing with India rationally. Of course, these are just words; while he was in power he had a puerile conservative streak that one cannot be certain he has abandoned.

So, if Imran Khan is not the most progressive leader of the lot, then what is the intended revolution going to do exactly? Well, for one, to give the historically unelected establishment a popular mandate.

The establishment has always been interested in military might, strategic depth and foreign affairs. But that’s misleading if one presumes they have no interest in domestic policy. The distinction between Pakistan’s domestic and foreign policy has ceded, they are one and the same. How we deal with Afghanistan, India, the Americans and militants has immediate repercussions on domestic soil, not in some distant land.

It’s Imran’s foreign policy views, and those on domestic militants, that are problematic. Imran Khan benefits from a suspension of disbelief from his ardent potential voters. His incorruptibility is all that they see. They give him the benefit of the doubt by trickling it down to his other policy measures and prescriptions, which are shallow at best and in line with the myopia of the establishment. The fatigued voter and first time voters just want some integrity brought back into the process of governance. In doing so, they are willing to make a trade-off by endorsing everything else Imran espouses, believing his domestic agenda of anti-corruption is all that matters.

The future of this will be another term for the PPP, already crippled by giving too much space to the military and having to take the blame for its follies and an even more entrenched armed forces in civilian affairs.

Zardari spent too much time dealing with a hostile establishment, ensuring his own survival and overplaying his hand by ceding too much, losing the real battle to ensure party values are enforced. In addition, severe problems of governance and corruption create the worst outcome for the party; being an unwitting member of the establishment itself in the next term. They will say beautiful things but be bound to do more of the same.

Maybe Imran Khan is playing the establishment, using its support to turn on it when the time is right, I can only hope that is true. But I doubt that’s the case. It’s now left to his urban voters to play down their seduction to the cult of personality and ensure their good intentions lead to good outcomes by asking for more than just promises of anti-corruption, and ensure the integrity of parliamentary supremacy at the very least.

Published in The Express Tribune, November 15^th,  2011.

August 24 went by quietly. No one really cared to celebrate the cockroach anniversary. Compared to September 11, Altaf’s song and dance routine, and Zulfiqar’s Amitabh avatar, the 24th isn’t that important.

Last year on that date, in August, I penned a piece titled “Pakistan’s human cockroaches”, a polemic aimed not at the state, the military or any foreign power, but at the people of Pakistan. I had seen, late at night, the brutal murder of Muneeb and Mughees at the hands of ordinary Pakistanis in Sialkot on YouTube.

For several days, I couldn’t sleep. And that was the day I wrote my first article while I was in a seething rage. It set off a chain reaction, making it one of the most shared articles on social media in Pakistan, getting mentions in The New York Times and the BBC.

The reaction was overwhelmingly negative. For a while, it seemed as if I was public enemy number one. The Express Tribune had a score of articles criticising the piece; Talat Hussain suggested I move to another country.

Given the brouhaha surrounding the article, I sat down this year wondering what I had learnt from the whole episode.

First, I learned that I may never be shocked by brutality again. When I saw the video of the rangers killing Sarfaraz Shah in Karachi, I wasn’t moved. It’s as if all my empathy drained out never to return after the Sialkot murders. I think I have spotted a trend; the dead will almost always be accused of thievery or worse.

Second, I learned that things will keep getting worse. In their anger, readers missed the central point I made in the last paragraph of “Pakistan’s human cockroaches”. I wrote “Truth is, there is only one way to get change, and it’s not hanging the people who killed these boys. It is raising your voice to contradict people who advocate death for others, no matter who they are speaking of.” Later in the article I had suggested that people try it and see just how difficult it is.

By that I meant challenging the cycle of justifying extremism casually, that even ordinary people do. Kill Jews, kill Ahmadis, kill Christians or finding excuses for the Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan and their murderous mission. Just three months later, Salmaan Taseer is killed for trying to raise his voice, and then Shahbaz Taseer was kidnapped.

Third, and this is almost superfluous, I learnt how blinkered expatriate Pakistani’s are. Their sense of patriotism seems to emanate from a flight guilt complex. Pakistani Swiss bankers wrote to express their rage, but continued to work in a country where minarets are banned. Patriots who justify the killings in Balochistan, the missing people and silence on other ills find that honour is more important than the life of someone killed extra-judicially.

Fourth, I learned that self reflection remains an elusive dream. Any argument about how bad things are at home, seem to be excused by others who suggest its worse in other countries.

Fifth, I learned that it’s getting harder and harder to express sorrow. In the multitude of excesses that has shocked people since, there is only so many times we can use the prose, “First they came for the Shias… I was silent because I wasn’t a Shia”, or the “Today I am ashamed to be a ….”

Sixth, I learned that Pakistanis who do nothing but defend the indefensible almost always absolve their guilt by pointing to the greatness and the work of Edhi and Imran Khan. Unfortunately, their great work doesn’t absolve other’s sins.

My only regret? Using the word cockroaches; at the time of writing, I did not know of its insidious use in the Rwandan context, something I am sorry for. I would now substitute the errant word with ostriches, who are incorrectly supposed to duck their heads in sand rather than face a problem.

So what did happen this August 24? Ansar Abbasi wrote a plaintive appeal to his country in the wake of the death of his mother, because he believes that his motherland is on its way to its demise if it doesn’t change. The left and right agree, one year on.

Published in The Express Tribune, September 14^th,  2011.

At the recent TEDx event in Karachi, I heard Imran Khan speak. His talk reminded me of why he is a great man: His cancer hospital that caters to the poorest who suffer from this cruel disease, and his educational initiatives in the least developed areas of Pakistan. He has managed to give to the poorest of the poor where the state has failed, and with a level of integrity that is unmatched. During his talk, he came out as a man with humility and fortitude, not something that comes out through his almost near constant presence on television talk shows. He deserves to be in the list of the pantheons of our living saints, like Edhi. Imran has already had more turns at public life than other great men: But in politics he has made little headway despite this impressive resume. His selling point, un-corruptibility and independence, has been long established, amongst other instances, through the WikiLeaks saga.

Many Pakistanis clamour for an independent Pakistan free of corruption, yet they balk at the idea of supporting Imran Khan, myself included. This dissonance is interesting, especially since it is coupled with an increasing gulf with broadening support from the online Facebook generation of youth for Imran.The main reason for the above, I suspect, is his unwillingness to play compromise politics. If a man is unwilling to compromise on his integrity, that should make him stand shoulders above the rest, no? Unfortunately, that’s not true in Imran’s case. A man who fears no one but his own conscience would, in Pakistan, take a stand against the oppressive treatment of minorities, increasing radicalisation of society, demonstrate strength against the Taliban, an issue parliament so easily caved in on, take on the top brass of the military who have compromised this nation and the institution itself.

That doesn’t describe Imran Khan. Speaking on these issues can get you killed, and lose your place and support in this society. His choice is the simpler one; ride on anti-Americanism and support the establishment while condemning an already discredited government. Also, one doesn’t know what Imran really believes in.He says the NRO, an unforgivable law from American and British meddling, came to undermine the ISI and the army. If anything, it legitimised the role of the army since Musharraf was in power when it was drawn up. The press has been rife with rumours suggesting that Imran Khan has sided with the establishment for support. He scoffs at this, but it wouldn’t be out of character, as a committed democrat he has in the past happily endorsed Musharraf.

But the real matter, and one that Imran Khan takes issue with, is that it’s suggested by some that he is a Taliban sympathiser. And for that, one has to consider that there is no other force in Pakistan that treats them as a legitimate entity that has tangible demands that can be accommodated with negotiations. But perhaps most troubling is Imran Khan’s belief in magic. He thinks if the US withdraws from Afghanistan, all will be fixed. Once radicalised, mission creep begins. To believe that those who enjoy the spoils of the fruits of terror will cave in is a gross misunderstanding of what groups like the Taliban are. They want an end to Pakistan as it is, under our Constitution. Imran Khan extends the same line of thought to why there are divisions in the army amongst those who may have helped in the PNS Mehran attack. He traces it back to the war on terror, but misreads that the radicalised jawan just wants the Americans gone. They want democracy to end, they want minorities to cease to exist, they want a fascism of their narrowly-defined beliefs, and they want a state of perpetual war against others. In “Parker Spitzer” on CNN, Imran blamed the death of Salmaan Taseer on the war on terror. As if blasphemy related murders never happened before 9/11. In the same show, when prodded to explain how terrorism could end, he suggested a ceasefire, negotiations and compromise. That’s exactly what happened in 2009 in Swat and Malakand, with the government going further and giving the extremists legal cover.

In all of Imran’s statements, one can find a rich source of caveats where he espouses progressive views. But it’s hard to take that on face value when banned groups, Hamid Gul and the Jamaat-e-Islami take a liking to him and he cavorts with the latter two. To be uncompromising, one needs to stick his neck out for the defenceless and challenge the war on rationality in Pakistan. Pakistan is already overwhelmingly against the drones. In Imran, all we have now is a suave Jamaat-i-Islami version 2.0 repackaged in his person, not revolutionary but old news.

Published in The Express Tribune, June 15^th, 2011.

Sir! I have come to discuss some major general issues about our all-powerful institution. I have given a statement to the press that we can shoot down American drones anytime the civilian government gives us the order. I have also ordered the civilian government never to issue us that order.

I knew that would please you Sir. We need to immediately announce some kind of initiative to do some damage control to ensure we remain the most popular institution in the country with ordinary people. No Sir, building another golf course will not do the job.

Yes Sir, I agree that Mohammed Hanif is making trouble again. We cleverly said, “We are good, but not God,” and he turned it around by saying “We are gods, but not good”. Yes Sir, he has typical Hindu thinking. Very pantheist-type traitor. No Sir, a pantheist is not an Olympic sport.

To scare him we will send him a crate of mangoes. No Sir, I am afraid we can’t write a note that he will ‘sleep with the fishes’. After the events this month, only the Americans can credibly say that. We can only credibly say we sleep with indignity.

Sir, may I suggest that we concentrate on the youth of this country? They are the future and form the core of our support base. This is why we must concentrate with surgical precision on breakfast, the most important meal of the day. After our line of corn flakes, I suggest we also manufacture digestives because institutionally, with all this attention, I think we all feel a little constipated.

Also, I think, key strategies for the future should include more investment in strategic infrastructure so our traditional enemy across the border is defeated. Yes Sir, Emax construction will rue the day they thought they could make better townships than us.

We might have to announce some important resignations to show the world we are serious about terrorism and our recent lapse. Yes I agree, Sepoy Barkat should take the fall. I know he is from your village and is a good malishi, but some serious sacrifices must be made. This will show that we are not involved. Yes Sir, I sent Mother’s Day cards to both Mullah Omar and Ayman alZawahiri.

Yes Sir, we are trying to influence the media by having met with 20 top journalists recently. It is our democratic duty to keep them informed because we have nothing to hide, so in the interest of openness we held a secret briefing.

I also think this Haqqani group may prove to be dangerous to us. No Sir, not best friend ‘Jimmy-Jalal’, I mean Hussain Haqqani and company. I suspect they are spreading blasphemous materials and ideas, like we should be responsible to the people and their representatives. Yes Sir, I agree, they do this because they have no real knowledge of history. They probably think we also lost the 1971 war.

Published in The Express Tribune, May 11^th, 2011.