The inevitable has happened. An assertive judiciary has convicted the prime minister even if the punishment was token — awarded for non-compliance of court orders. The prime minister’s counsel, Aitzaz Ahsan, has objected to the judgment saying that the punishment awarded was beyond the scope of his original indictment. There are multiple legal questions surrounding this decision and only the full judgment will clarify matters. However, it is the political ramifications of judicial assertion, which are of import in today’s Pakistan.

The PPP’s victim card — of being wronged by the establishment and the courts — is not entirely unfounded. Yet, this Supreme Court is not the court of the past. The lawyers’ movement (2007-9) allowed for an unprecedented populist backing to the courts and now many vested interests and groups deem the courts a natural ally in their own quest for independence, leverage and profits.

Public officials must be held accountable for their transgressions. This is vital for effective governance as well as for building legitimacy of democratic institutions. In purely technical terms, the Court’s decision is a welcome one. No longer can the executive be allowed to trample on judicial orders. After all, a letter to the Swiss authorities seeking the reopening of a case against President Asif Ali Zardari may have averted the crisis. Presidential immunity in the international and domestic laws is a given. However, in hindsight, this was a great opportunity for the PPP to underscore the fact that it is always the victim of selective accountability.

The cases against President Zardari and twice-elected Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto were registered by their political opponents, i.e., military-backed arbitrary presidents; and the main opposition party, which till 1999 was on the right side of the establishment. This context cannot be divorced from the legal aspects of the case. That said, at the end of the day the courts decide on issues of law and fact. The truth is that the Pakistani state has used cases against the PPP leadership as instruments of power and negotiation through the decades. This is why the perception within the PPP support base especially in Sindh (and now southern Punjab) is that the court’s verdict is not a ‘fair’ one given that other political parties and state institutions have gotten away with far worse.

As for the Supreme Court, it has done its job according to its interpretation of the Constitution and law. That, however, will not prevent the PPP from using the conviction to ramp up its support, especially with the next election around the corner.

Moving on, the role of some TV channels and anchors in acting as lawyers, judges and prosecutors has been most worrying. Legal issues require informed debate and political commentary requires objectivity. Both were missing before and after the Supreme Court verdict. This brings us to the vital issue of accountability of the new players in the power game.

The higher courts are accountable via the Supreme Judicial Council. The latter’s record has not been encouraging, as far as holding members of the superior judiciary accountable is concerned. Similarly, the media — or large segments of it — acts as if it is not accountable to any authority. Pemra is there but its own independence and credibility is seen by many as being compromised. Compare this with to elected institutions and members of parliament: they are accountable both to the electorate, via elections, and increasingly to the judiciary via such cases.

The rising power of the media as well as the usual tendency of the judiciary to not hold itself accountable is a recent development and it is still not understood. Whether this phenomenon will hinder or bolster the process of democratic development remains to be seen.

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

The memogate inquiry shows how political cases are wasting the precious time of the courts and creating one embarrassment after another for the Pakistani state. If media reports are to be believed, the military and the ISI have already backtracked on their earlier zeal to get this issue further explored. The architect of the memo controversy, General Ahmad Shuja Pasha, has retired and one hopes better sense will now prevail. At the same time, the principal character, Mansoor Ijaz, has been exposed as a vacillating, and an unreliable ‘witness’ during the proceedings. Yet, our Supreme Court wants to proceed with the case and the inquiry commission has been given additional time to investigate the unsigned memo.

Mr Ijaz had earlier claimed how Husain Haqqani wanted to become the president of Pakistan with the help of the US. Nothing could be more bizarre than this wild claim, which only indicates the mild psychosis that Mr Ijaz might be suffering from. In fact, by dragging the Indian Kashmiri leader and scores of other parties, Mr Ijaz has indulged in the art of making an allegation and then refuting it the very next day. It is clear, even to Haqqani’s detractors, that his nemesis has little or no credibility.

Haqqani’s request to give his testimony via video link from London has been turned down by the inquiry commission. It has directed him to appear in person as per the terms agreed with the Court. It is important to note that this facility was provided to Mr Ijaz. Thanks to zealous media personnel and their shenanigans (joined these days by the planted social media ‘activists’), Haqqani has already been branded as a ‘traitor’. Given the number of jihadi and ‘patriotic’ lunatics who operate with impunity, Mr Haqqani faces a clear danger in coming to Pakistan at least, until the ‘facts’ of the memo case are established. So far, facts have been a casualty in the entire process.

Earlier, Mr Haqqani was debarred by the Supreme Court from leaving the country; and an extraordinary premium was placed on what the army and intelligence chiefs had said. Haqqani’s lawyer was called a tantrum-throwing lady (forgetting that she herself has faced death threats for her brave activism) and untenable binaries were created between the ‘legal’ and ‘political’ sides of the case. Suffice it to say, the memo case is largely political and every party has had an axe to grind through it — from the media to the opposition leader.

The lawyers’ movement had rekindled the hope that our justice system would be reformed to provide quicker and cheaper relief to millions of petitioners. Thus far, this remains an unrealised goal. Even the lawyers who mobilised as a political force have done nothing to improve how the bars and the profession work. As a mob, the lawyers continue to show how they are completely unregulated and get away with committing violence against the media, police, hapless subordinate judges, not to mention offering prayers for Osama bin Laden.

Citizens have a right to ask why three serving chief justices of high courts are investing huge amounts of their precious time in handling the bizarre claims (and counter-claims) made by Mr Ijaz, when they should be attending to their core mandates of managing the high courts and thousands of subordinate courts. There are roughly 1.2 million cases pending in Pakistani courts and the cost of litigation is soaring due to a virtually unaccountable legal profession and corruption in lower courts. The Supreme Court has time and again reminded us that it is representing the people’s will and is answerable to the people only. Perhaps, nothing is as pressing for the ‘people’ than the denial of justice they are facing.

The Urdu media and internet forums are full of edicts against Mr Haqqani and sections of the establishment feel betrayed by his critical book on the Pakistan military. The least we can do is not to expose a man of his intellect to the rogue elements in the country. For the record, I have never met Mr Haqqani and hold no brief for his past adventures with the intelligence agencies. All I know is that he deserves a fair deal by a country he has tried to serve and defend in difficult times when everyone and his aunt have been wanting to ‘punish’ Pakistan.

Published in The Express Tribune, April 2^nd, 2012.

The highly mediatised ‘rise’ of Imran Khan is promising because it engages the country’s largest segment of population i.e., the youth. This could potentially herald a new beginning in the political sense. This asset of the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) — the ability to connect to the youth — cannot be underestimated. Furthermore, sections of the non-voting urban population are also joining the PTI bandwagon. This is a monumental development because the last time it happened was over 40 years ago, when Zulfikar Ali Bhutto captured the popular imagination in the cities.

Much has been said about the great Khan’s sympathies for the militants who are resisting ‘America’s war’ in our region. Never mind that they also kill Pakistanis, attack mosques, shrines and funerals and are in bed with a global ideology that wants to decimate the ‘un-Islamic’ Pakistani state. The odd relationship between the PTI and the self-declared defenders of Pakistan — the ragtag Islamist parties, ex-servicemen and known terrorists — has also been highlighted. I will not dwell on these issues as several commentators have indicated the dangers of this populist discourse and the larger, intrinsic relationship between populism and authoritarianism.

My real worry is that Mr Khan is yet to offer an alternative agenda. His charisma, cricket connection, philanthropic record and the use of social media are at work. When it comes to policy, the plan ahead is almost farcical. Haven’t we heard of elimination of corruption in 90 days before? Corruption, as a slogan, has been used by almost every Pakistani government to undermine political opponents. As early as the 1950s, laws to disqualify politicians were enacted.

The 1990s saw the military establishment orchestrate a ridiculous anti-corruption charade. Nawaz Sharif’s second tenure had a Himmler-wannabe as the chief of accountability, who turned anti-corruption efforts into medieval witch-hunts. Former President General Pervez Musharraf’s illegitimate rule was welcomed by the same urban middle classes, which now cheer for Imran Khan to eliminate the ‘corrupt’, old guard politicians.

Tackling corruption is not a 90-day job, for it will only result in high-powered accountability operations stuck in a dysfunctional legal system. It is a medium to long-term process involving restructuring of institutions — laws, formal and informal rules and conventions — which shape societal interaction and determine state behaviour. Pakistani politics and economics are defined by the military’s hegemony. The biggest expenditure items — defence and debt servicing — are virtually unaccountable. Has Mr Khan thought about these issues or will these disappear through ‘moral legitimacy’ — another wooly construct cited like a totem. ‘Clean’ civilians will make the khakis give up power. One has to live in wonderland to accept such postulates as even half-credible.

Similarly, have Mr Khan and his advisers considered that Pakistan’s servility to the US war machine cannot be detached from class interests of its elites, which need global markets, military equipment and unlimited supplies of ‘aid’?

Politicians, civil servants, judges and state officials are required to declare their assets according to existing laws. There are anti-corruption establishments in each provincial government and offices of national and provincial ombudsmen exist. How about looking at these laws and institutions instead of ending corruption through the ouster of individuals alone. We are told ‘clean’ men at the top  will lead to a revolution. This top-down, autocratic approach with an arrogance of knowing all the technocratic solutions is most worrying.

It is not even clear how much electoral support Imran Khan’s charisma will translate into. I personally don’t want Imran Khan to fail. Khan’s failure and the absence of popular alternative narratives may make the future of democracy even more dismal. However, Khan must realise that this is not the managing of a hospital or a game of sport. Governing Pakistan involves the future of millions and restructuring of a national security state. Without achieving the latter, promising an Islamic welfare state is a cruel joke.

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

The new al Qaeda chief, Ayman al-Zawahiri in his new video statement has urged the people of Pakistan to overthrow the “corrupt” government in Islamabad. Interestingly, he has also asked the people to rise against the Pakistan Army, which has been fighting a battle against some extremist groups in the north west of the country. Al Qaeda has been making such desperate calls for a decade now. But the worrying part is that the message — or its operative part — has gained currency in many middle class Pakistanis. Despite the crackdown, Hizbut Tahreer (HuT) continues to operate like several other militant groups. The extent of its advocacy for overthrowing the generals and the politicians is such that a HuT affiliated senior army official is on trial these days.

But these trials and military interventions are pointless when Islamabad, virtually a security zone, displays HuT posters and stickers almost everywhere. Why are the activists not tracked down and why do the government and the all-powerful intelligence agencies allow proliferation of such propaganda? A partial explanation is that elements of the state are also steeped in this a similar mindset. It is an established fact that the composition of the officers’ corps in the army and civilian bureaucracy is overwhelmingly middle class.

In his latest statement, again al-Zawahiri has mentioned the 70-year-old American aid worker Dr Warren Weinstein, who was kidnapped in August 2011 from Lahore. The message from al Qaeda is that Weinstein will not be released until their demands are met. Among others, a key demand is the release of Aafia Siddiqui, a Pakistani scientist sentenced by the US courts and currently languishing in an American prison. Ms Aafia’s story is still incomplete and there are competing claims over her role in perpetrating ‘terrorism’ as well as her innocence.

But in the popular imagination, Ms Aafia is a victim of US aggression. Pakistani Urdu media and sections of its political class have declared her the ‘daughter of the nation’. Even a secular party such as the MQM had to appease public sentiment and held a huge rally in Karachi against the US. It’s a separate matter that the ‘nation’ (looking at what the Baloch are rejecting as their Pakistani identity) here is as contested as the idea of its ‘daughter’ being imprisoned and violated by the US. Even the missing persons case is instructive. On balance, there is more noise about the missing persons allegedly linked to the militants than those belonging to the Balochistan province. This is not to suggest that the state has any right to incarcerate a citizen without due process but the ‘ideological’ tilt is quite clear.

Dr Weinstein was never charged of spying and no evidence has been brought in public light. Equating his case with Afia Siddiqui or others, as some Pakistanis do, makes no sense. If anything, the silence in our media about the plight of an old, frail man who lived in Pakistan as a development worker betrays how the aversion to US harms our collective humanity. Should Pakistan become a state where no Westerner is safe, considering that millions of Pakistanis are living in the West, especially the US?

Al-Zawahiri’s confidence is not all that misplaced. The dominant sections of media comprise the middle class, which views the Taliban and other militants as forces pitted against Western imperialism. Sadly, there is also a growing trend where scholarship is legitimising jihadis. The postponed agenda of counter-radicalisation by mainstream politics is giving way to a new political force which popularises simplistic solutions to extremism and blames ‘liberal scum’ instead. Such lies are being fed to younger Pakistanis who want positive change, better prospects and a safer Pakistan. For economic progress, security is important and sustainable peace cannot be achieved when millions readily justify the violent version of ‘jihad’. This misleading political narrative must be challenged and reclaimed from such apologists. Rejecting and fighting US hegemony is not enough. The domestic battle against the many-faced protégés of Mr Zawahiri is equally important.

Published in The Express Tribune, March 20^th, 2012.

The change of leadership at Pakistan’s premier intelligence agency is an appropriate moment to reflect on what went wrong with the last adventure of the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) i.e. the memo affair. Despite a veiled-yet-major putsch by all concerned, the ruse was too obvious and slipshod to oust the civilian order. Healthy institutions take stock of where they went wrong and undertake course correction.

The ungainly leak to a newspaper editor, quoted by the new saviour in the making, Imran Khan, in a public rally, indicated how a new game was being engineered. Khan named Pakistan’s former ambassador to the US, Husain Haqqani as the alleged author of a memo which sought to undermine national security, which, unfortunately, is equated with patriotism in Pakistan. No sooner than this revelation was made, the media jumped in and for weeks there was nothing else but the story on how Haqqani had attempted to sell his country. A virulent media campaign was launched with the words of an American-Pakistani businessman repeated as gospel. Mansoor Ijaz emerged as a man of honour who ironically was on record to have called our spy agency as the source of global terror! However, these ‘minor’ issues with Ijaz were brushed aside, Haqqani was summoned, forced to quit and then kept as a prisoner without a passport.

Many questioned if the so-called memo asking for US support to reign in the military meant anything. Was it signed by anyone? Was even a portion of its recommendations implemented? Did the US pay any attention to such a silly scheme? Questions of this nature rarely find a place in the irrational media popular these days. Enter the largest opposition party and its gullibility in playing along with this game. A petition was filed in the Supreme Court, and the judgment which was delivered might haunt us for a long time as it, in effect, gave precedence to a militaristic definition of ‘national security’ over and above the fundamental rights of citizens. A judicial commission continues to investigate the traitors despite Ijaz’s refusal to travel to Pakistan.

What other things were revealed via this whole affair? Firstly, that the head of the agency had been travelling without the knowledge of his superior, the prime minister. If Ijaz was right about Haqqani plotting against the army, then was he also not correct about General Pasha’s visit to Middle Eastern kingdoms to garner support for a military coup? Secondly, the then former defence secretary, dismissed by the prime minister eventually, in his affidavits before the Court stated that the ISI and military operations were not under the control of the civilian government. This was a damning admission of how arms of the executive defy constitutional provisions!

Thirdly, the memo affair empowered the otherwise discredited government to assert itself and thus came the famous remarks of the prime minister that a state within a state would not be tolerated and those who were paid salaries with taxpayers’ money must be accountable to public representatives. Thus, the patriotism-game backfired. That may just be a defining moment for the future of democratic rule in Pakistan.

Some in the media are now saying that President Zardari will delay elections to wait for General Kayani to retire. This never-ending plotting must end now. The Senate elections have taken place and there is agreement on transfer of power via the Twentieth Amendment. The Constitution is clear that the term of elected legislatures is five years. There is no plot there.

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

While Pakistan’s national security state remains busy to protect its domestic power and global leverage, the lethal polio virus made a startling comeback in recent years. Over 173 cases were officially reported during 2011, making a mockery of our priorities. Our neighbours, India and Bangladesh have eradicated polio and we remain in competition with Nigeria and Afghanistan regarding the number of polio cases identified. Until the end of the month of February, 13 new polio cases were detected this year. The new cases are not confined to militancy-affected areas — though we would like to believe and blame the war on terror for all our woes. In 2012, polio cases were reported from Hyderabad and Naushehro Feroze in Sindh, Bahawalnagar in Punjab and Khyber Agency in Fata.

During 2010, 144 polio cases were reported in the media; higher than 2009 levels when 116 polio cases were identified. There is no question that poorer and conflict-ridden districts are more likely to be hit by the virus. It has been noted in the government’s own documents such as the draft National Emergency Action Plan (NEAP) 2011, that upto 20 per cent of children in the country are deprived of the third (critical) immunisation dose that leads to increased vulnerability to this crippling disease. In 2011, polio patients increased in Balochistan and Sindh, as they decreased in Fata and Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa by 30 per cent.

In Balochistan, districts bordering Afghanistan and Karachi in Sindh remain high-risk areas. Karachi’s three localities where cases have been reported are Gadap, Baldia and SITE and this may have to do with migration in the recent years due to conflict and/or natural disasters. Thus, the challenge compounds for the federal and provincial governments to tackle this disease.

Earlier, immunisation campaigns have been affected by the fatwa’s issues by clerics declaring such campaigns a conspiracy of the West. Other efforts such as the introduction of iodised salt in the northern parts of Pakistan suffered as the mullahs declared that immunised salt turned men impotent. But the recent discovery of a fake immunisation campaign by the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has been the final confirmation of sorts. Apparently, the CIA in its drive to find Osama bin Laden, engaged one Dr Afridi and his team went from house to house to provide vaccinations for hepatitis and collected DNA samples. Perhaps, Bin Laden’s family was identified through this means, Afridi languishes in jail and the US is appealing for his release. But this awful ploy has caused much harm to the state of immunisation in the country.

According to a report in The Guardian (March 2, 2012) , a group of US NGOs coalition has written to the CIA director that such “use of the cover of humanitarian activity” for intelligence purposes “casts doubt on the intentions and integrity of all humanitarian actors in Pakistan, thereby undermining the international humanitarian community’s efforts to eradicate polio, provide critical health services, and extend life-saving assistance…”. This is a laudable step and within Pakistan, local health groups and media should also undertake advocacy in this direction.

Our maverick politician, Sheikh Rasheed has been making some outrageous claims on TV shows. Rasheed accused Unicef (actually the WHO) of using dubious ‘Indian’ polio drops in Pakistan. This is the most vile level of politics that anyone can play in a country where polio incidence is alarming, to say the least.

Pakistan’s polio problem is a reflection of how we neglect our social sectors at the expense of everything else. Public health crises such as dengue, fake medicines etc have already exposed how our systems and regulations are virtually collapsed. It is time for the elected governments to reorient their priorities and deliver on their promises. Two key factors, which have marred the polio campaigns — ineffective accountability and monitoring systems — cannot be rectified without effective local government reform.

The polio crisis also reminds us that nuclear weapons do not ensure the safety and prosperity of our future generations.

Published in The Express Tribune, March 6^th, 2012.

Popular art forms reflect subaltern expressions. Pakistan’s truck art is a case in point. The auto rickshaws have for decades displayed the imaginations and aspirations of ‘common’ folks. Rickshaw art also manifests our long art traditions, rooted in the daily life, a way for the underdogs to converse with urban elites. Rickshaw poetry has been recognised as a genre in its own. Take for example, ‘Maa ki dua, janat ki hawa’ (A mother’s prayer is a breeze from heavens) or Pappu yaar tang na kar, almost impossible to translate but equivalent of advising on taking a chill-pill. Drawings, posters and artwork on rickshaws, as political commentary (on inequality, heartless city life etc) have been flourishing for years.

On our highways, the truckers have been glorifying Gen Ayub Khan (1958-69), Pakistan’s first military dictator and a few politicians. Popular art has also challenged orthodoxy by drawing the legendary Buraq (an angel) and several Sufi saints and their miracles. Traditionally, the auto rickshaws were useful vehicles of party propaganda during election times with little loud speakers. However, the rickshaw owners would return to their original passions — love poetry that bemoaned a heartless beloved, wisecracks and of course, secular expressions of angst. During the last decade, Lahore’s rickshaws, not unlike the country, are undergoing a not-so-subtle metamorphosis.

First came the aggressive marketing of religious congregations. Advertising for private tuition centres and faith healers followed. In the recent months, this space has been appropriated by the messages of the Pakistan Defence Council. This coalition of rightwing extremism, articulating an anti-India and hate-America agenda has been rather inventive. Countless rickshaws in Lahore and its surrounding areas advertise the burnt bodies of Gujarat and Samjhauta express victims. The common slogan loosely related is: “There can be only one kind of relationship with India (Bharat); based on hatred and seeking revenge” via jihad. India’s alleged theft of our waters is also highlighted ad nauseam.

During 2011, these messages have been flashing across Lahore. This sort of campaign is obviously ‘sponsored’ and those behind it are too powerful for any authority to take note of. The political party, which rules Lahore, entered into a historic agreement with India’s Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee in 1999 and is committed to peace with India. The federal coalition comprising the PPP, the ANP and the MQM are all in favour of establishing peaceful relations with India and advancing the trade agenda. In fact, the ANP and the MQM have been accused of being soft on India and their party leaders’ statements have been called into question by the hyper-nationalists.

If almost all of people’s representatives in parliament do not agree with the shenanigans of the PDC which some call a proxy of Pakistan’s de facto rulers — the various arms of the ‘Deep State’ then why are they not countering this onslaught of propaganda that gets into popular domain via live transmission of PDC rallies, through popular art and even social media? How much can civil society — that is afraid of extremists — do when those enjoying power at the centre and provinces are not willing to stick their necks out?

Why is the Lahore city administration not taking note of these vile messages? Some of the images are visually disturbing for children who are frequent users. Is there no other way to articulate our concern for water scarcity and ‘war’ with India? Extremism is slowly destroying the culture Lahore was once proud of.

Newer and popular expressions of jihadi ideology are impositions from the above and do not reflect the imaginations of the artists and drivers. Our public spaces are turning into haunting grounds of militaristic might and jihadi discourse. Challenging it is the first step towards changing our country.

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

Urdu has been a controversial language in Pakistan despite its official and holy status. The Bengalis rejected it way back in the 1940s when Jinnah, advised by a bureaucracy, with imperial moorings declared in that it would be the official language. Subsequently, Sindhis, Baloch and Pashtuns have also resisted the one-size-fits-all Urdu formula. Admittedly, in the past few decades, Urdu has emerged as a functional lingua franca that connects the various federating units of Pakistan but its conflation with Islam and Muslim ‘nationhood’ remains the paramount narrative in Pakistan.

It takes arduous scholarship and infinite courage to author a book like “From Hindi to Urdu: A Social and Political History” (Oxford University Press, 2011). Dr Tariq Rahman ironically has worked as the Director of the National Institute of Pakistan Studies at the Quaid-i-Azam University and therefore his challenge to the mythical dimensions of ‘Pakistan Studies’ comes from within and not as an outsider. Sixty-four years after the creation of Pakistan, we have not arrived at any conclusion about our ‘national’ or cultural identity. Dr Rahman’s book if anything shatters the myths that we have built around Urdu; and therefore presents a valid alternative to Goebbelsesque tone of our official history.

Urdu, according to Rahman, evolved out of the various mutually intelligible dialects across India. Muslims who landed in India as soldiers, merchants, mystics, and camp followers enriched the native dialects. Especially the one that was spoken around Delhi called Khari Boli. A language known as Hindi, Hindvi or Dehlavi came into being. It spread towards the south and by the 18^th century it was called Rekhta and Hindustani, among other names. The elites of Delhi Persianised it and renamed it as Zuban-e-Urdu-e-Mualla (the language of an exalted city).

Far from being a separate identity marker, Urdu represented the complex Hindu-Muslim exchange during the 13^th-18^th centuries. Therefore, as Rahman rightly says, Urdu is a common heritage of Hindus and Muslims for at least 500 years if not more. By undertaking detailed research into subject, he shows instead of being an elitist language it was the language of common men and women. Urdu language essentially is rooted in the Indian soil and a manifestation of osmosis between Hindus and Muslims. Rahman also shows that Urdu was not born in military barracks as a resut of Muslim invasions.

One cannot disagree with Rahman that ‘modern’ Urdu is a deliberate Muslim cultural product, which came into being through the linguistic reform movement during late 18^th century. This was the same time when Hindu reformers started to clean up and removed Persian and Arabic words in favour of Sanskrit.

My own views, largely based on what the patriotic Pakistani scholars wrote, were challenged as Rahman disproves the faux theory that locates Urdu in geographical areas now constituting Pakistan. However, the most illuminating part of his study relates to the prevalent myth in Pakistan that somehow the British deliberately promoted Hindi against Urdu i.e. the Muslims. To the contrary as Rahman tells us the British showed partiality towards the development of Urdu rather than Hindi and made public investments into the language.

Of course, such narratives cannot be popular in a country where Hindi-Urdu controversy of 19^th and early 20^th century is cited as the basis of Muslim separatism. Unfortunately, we have little room for the kind of scientific research that Rahman has undertaken. Half-truths and invented ‘facts’ enable the construction of nationalisms. We have used Urdu as a political instrument to articulate the hegemony of the key classes that led events to Partition. Furthermore, imposition of Urdu at the expense of regional languages has further compounded its status. Thus we have isolated ourselves from centuries of a cultural identity, and also alienated the various peoples of Pakistan ‘reinventing’ Urdu as an Islamic thing. It has led to reactions across the border where a similar ‘Muslim’ stamp is affixed on a people’s language that was essentially secular and plural.

Pakistan is a reality now. We can still correct our future if we give up the pastime of hating our heritage and admitting that all the weapons and propaganda cannot falsify history. One hopes that Dr Rahman’s book is translated for the Urdu readers soon.

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

Shortly thereafter the PM dismissed the Defence Secretary, reportedly close to military leadership, for “gross misconduct and illegal action”. The Secretary apparently had bypassed government channels. Most media discussions based on a wild guessing game suggested that the PM might dismiss the ISI and military chiefs. Concurrently, the posting of a new head for the infamous 111 brigade – the coup instrument – by the military was interpreted as a signal that military establishment would react in case of such an eventuality. Thus the stand off between Islamabad and Rawalpindi was detectable. Sections of local media fuelled the tensions and by the evening most international news sources were ‘breaking’ stories on the heightened civil-military rift in Pakistan. Even the diplomatic missions issued statements making the usual noises about supporting Pakistan’s democracy yet vowing not to interfere in its internal affairs.

The widening rift between Zardari led coalition and the Army is not new. It has intensified with the hearing of a petition filed against the memo (asking for US help to prevent a coup) allegedly authored by Pakistan’s former Ambassador to the US. The recent verdicts of the Supreme Court on forming a judicial commission to probe the memo affair and more importantly the 6-options laid out for the government to implement its 2010 NRO judgment have made the government jittery.

By the late evening, tensions were somewhat defused as PPP’s senior Ministers assured that Gen Kayani would complete his tenure; and the PM talking to media remarked that Kayani had spoken to him before the ISPR press release was issued! Such convenient shifts in positions would seem surreal in any other country but Pakistan’s governance patterns are neither rule based nor predictable.

Observers have noted that President Zardari and the government have been playing a game of chess with the Court. That may now be coming to a closure as the hearing on January 16 will be critical given that one of the options is to initiate judicial proceedingss with implied disqualification of senior officials for not complying with court orders. It seems that the government with regard to the military has adopted a similar strategy.

Also on Wednesday, the Chief Justice reiterated his support for democratic system while talking to a delegation. The Judiciary, media and international opinion are aligned against a coup and the government knows it. After dismissing the Defence Secretary it backtracked from the brink. PM Gilani has done it before as well. After his strong remarks against the military in late December he retreated. Both sides have shown the cards they have: the military has the traditional authority, which it has enjoyed since 1950s; and the civilian government is ready to be ‘martyred’. The judicature has emerged as an arbiter of sorts.

The government would need to make concessions before the Court for its survival. Wednesday’s events suggest that Pakistan has perhaps moved on from 1990s when military takeovers were easier. At the same time, the civil-military faultline has been compounded by the addition of two new power-brokers – the courts and the media.  Politicians and the khakis are becoming cognizant of this new reality.

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

One year after Salmaan Taseer’s murder, Pakistan still bleeds. The debate on laws introduced or amended by General Ziaul Haq has been muzzled. Progressives and moderate Pakistanis who mourned for Taseer continue to remain bewildered at the shameful support given to the Taseer’s murderer.

Contrary to many predictions, the trial court delivered a sentence against Mumtaz Qadri and that was a small ray of hope which reminded us of the innate possibilities of reforming and strengthening the state. Yet, the judge who sentenced Qadri has had to flee the country because he was facing death threats. Earlier the prosecutors were threatened and when the judge delivered the sentence, lawyers vandalised the court premises. The foot soldiers of the rule of law movement were never exposed better than in the Taseer episode when hundreds of Islamabad and Rawalpindi lawyers garlanded a murderer; and thus emerged the unfortunate image of our times — a smug killer celebrated, denoting the disturbing side of Pakistani society.

More importantly, the eerie silence of Pakistan’s moderate parties such as the Pakistan People’s Party, the Awami National Party and the PML-N on the issue of Taseer’s murder revealed how weak the political process is against the forces of extremism. The near-capitulation of the political class was evident when senators refused to offer prayer in the house. Only when a strong woman parliamentarian insisted and took the initiative, a prayer was held. These incidents will remain a shameful testament of how far we have allowed bigotry to rule us.

Reportedly, the PPP-affiliated cleric who offered the funeral prayers for Taseer has also had to leave the country. Furthermore, citizens wish to know what happened to the members of the elite police force who were apparently complicit in Qadri’s crime. Has the leadership of a force meant to protect people been asked to answer for this fiasco? Moreover, what measures have the federal and provincial governments taken to prevent similar incidents taking place in the future?

A year later, the media is yet to take stock of its questionable role in fanning misinformation and sensationalism about Taseer’s murder. One newspaper printed the copy of the fatwa against the former governor and a TV anchor called him a westernised liberal and almost a blasphemer. The media bodies, inactive as they are, have taken no cognisance of these ghastly cases of misconduct. It seems that the state and its strange ally, the media, are leading us towards further radicalisation.

Taseer’s family continues to live in fear and his son, since August 2011, is in the custody of his abductors, who according to media reports, are none other than the infamous militant groups hell-bent on destroying Pakistan. The establishment, the political elite and the media are, at best, pandering to the rise of radical ideologies, which merge with the global Islamist movements.

Should we let Pakistan slide into this extremist morass, deep into a sectarian abyss, or should we think of alternatives? Taseer’s murder and his son’s abduction are symptomatic of the easily identifiable fault lines that endangers Pakistan’s future. A year later, there is much to keep mourning about. Taseer was not an ordinary man — he represented the lost vision for Pakistan.

Published in The Express Tribune, January 4^th, 2012.