Economic rationality does not strike a chord with a public raised on a steady diet of emotional irrationality disguised in the garb of national security imperatives. In the weeks to come, Nato trucks will start rolling through Pakistan into Afghanistan. Dollars will roll into the coffers of the Pakistani exchequer and the Pakistani public will, once again, lambast the civilian government for giving in to American pressure and sacrificing national honour at the altar of the mighty dollar.

The foes of the government will make noise about submission to the Americans and elected democrats will end up paying the price for the rational choice to reopen the Nato supply lines. Nothing angers Pakistanis more than the realisation that our military might does not match up with our own inflated perceptions of our national strength. Any perceived signs of military weakness vis-à-vis other states ignites national passions across the motherland like no other national shortcoming. The media’s disproportionate focus on issues of national security, defined narrowly as military might, has taken the spotlight away from local development issues making them seem only slightly significant to the national interest.

As a result, we do not care about the economy or the dismal state of our social indicators compared with regional peers. We are not ashamed of being one of the last remaining exporters of the polio virus. We fail to recognise that the cost of climate change and associated natural disasters will be far more lethal to Pakistanis than India’s nuclear stockpile.

When we are not debating national security, constitutional issues that have no bearing on the life of the average citizen take up media space as if they were the next apocalyptic catastrophe that Pakistan must brace for. The amount of airtime dedicated to scrutiny or discussion of issues that actually make a difference to Pakistan’s citizens remains abysmally low.

With 2013 being election year, it would be a pity and disservice to democracy if public debate remained focused on drones or continued to drone on about Nato supply lines. What Pakistan needs is in-depth engagement with politicians and political parties on the small issues that television anchors do not have time for. The state of education, underutilised education budgets, mismanagement of municipal authorities and their funds, lack of clean drinking water, our negligence of climate change and associated natural disasters are issues that will not only impact the average citizen but are issues that should be at the forefront of national public debate. While writing about these matters in English dailies has its cathartic benefits, until and unless the mainstream electronic media take up these causes they will gain no traction in the hearts and minds of Pakistani people. Consequently, the establishment will see no cause to give these issues the attention they deserve.

It is time to divert attention from the macro to the micro and to define national security in its broader sense and realise that a child out of school is also a threat to national security, stability and progress. The priorities in public debate must switch to focus on issues other than bombs and contempt notices because how many children go to school and what kind of education they receive will eventually be a more powerful predictor of how successful we become as a nation.

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

Hina Rabbani Khar was not my top choice for foreign minister. Others within the Pakistan Peoples Party were more qualified to be the country’s top diplomat. The blogosphere, email groups and Twitter feeds are buzzing with criticism from Pakistanis disappointed with Khar’s appointment as it epitomises the lack of merit, deep-rooted dynastic politics and the restrictive hold of the feudal classes on the political system. Criticism of her lack of expertise and the advantage offered by her family background are fair and deserve to be aired. What is not fair, and downright sexist, is bashing Khar on account of her looks and gender.

I’m not trying to be a wet-blanket feminist who tries to kill the fun in big boys talking politics and using ‘humour’ to add appeal to their writing. I like a good laugh too, but what I don’t like is a woman being singled out and ridiculed for things that her male predecessor was never targeted for, despite them bearing an uncanny resemblance to each other.

The dapper Shah Mahmood Qureshi was no less dashing or handsome as Khar is pretty. Especially when compared to some of his rotund, flame-bearded colleagues in parliament, much like Khar stands out when you compare her to her rotund colleagues. Qureshi was a sharp dresser, like Khar. Yet, while we have obsessed endlessly over the handbag she took to India, we never really paid much attention to the tie Qureshi wore at the joint press conference where prospects for India-Pakistan peace were butchered. I wonder why.

We’ve cried ourselves hoarse over Khar’s feudal background and her family’s influence in politics, but was there similar outrage among Pakistan’s mighty internet crusaders about Qureshi being the Shah Rukne Alam sajjada nashin, arguably the biggest source of his political clout? And there is also the small matter of Qureshi’s father having been the governor of Punjab, but somehow, in his case, familial linkages to the world of power and politics did not matter.

What does set Qureshi and Khar apart is the former’s longer record with the PPP. However, none of his previous experiences or portfolios provided any kind of training or expertise to head the foreign ministry. Yet this was not problematic in his case, as he dressed well and spoke English well. Khar dresses well too and can speak pretty good English. She has a degree in hospitality and tourism management which, some could argue, is better preparation for diplomacy than a law degree or experience with agriculture policy — Qureshi’s qualifications.

Hina Rabbani Khar’s appointment is symptomatic of many flaws in Pakistani society and politics, and are thus worthy of criticism. However, the kind of criticism that she has received is symptomatic of a deeply problematic gender bias in our society. Since her appointment, Khar has had to deal with slurs against her character, speculations about the methods she used to get to the top, snide remarks about her looks and accessories and a complete disregard for her intellect which has helped her manage several important portfolios.

She is not alone in facing such sexist onslaughts. Women in Pakistan who dare to look good and take pride in their femininity while wielding political power, like Sherry Rehman, will have to suffer numerous baseless insults about their character, integrity and competence. Only by turning themselves into an elderly maternal figure do women manage to get themselves taken seriously. Now that’s a pity. I don’t see men scurrying about to become brotherly or fatherly figures to the average Pakistani woman. Why must this be a woman’s lot if she is to be in power in Pakistan?

Published in The Express Tribune, July 29^th, 2011.

Just two years ago, lawyers, political parties, civil society activists and students were marching to establish the rule of law in Pakistan. We, as a country, stood united behind the belief that the law must take due course and the rule of law must reign supreme. We promised not to bow down to the pressures of dictators or external forces. But today, those who stood on the frontlines and made these promises are nowhere to be found to condemn a man who scorned the rule of law, broke sworn oaths of duty and murdered a man.

I am confused and angry. A murderer has been crowned a hero and the man he slaughtered is the villain. I am told a murderer of this ilk proudly walks down every street of Pakistan, waiting to slay anyone he, in his own head, accuses, tries and convicts of blaspheming. There are scores who will defend and glorify him. Then there are those who will sit in their drawing rooms and say the murderer shouldn’t be glorified, but the victim was asking for it. They will then tell you that Pakistan is a failed state, spiralling into the abyss of religious fanaticism. Some will incite you to take to the streets against the illiterate cleric propagating intolerance and violence. Others will invite you to a candlelight vigil or a Facebook group. Here they will collectively wish they could swat the mullahs back into their caves with their Prada bags.

The bloodlust and hysteria of the masses that cheered the governor’s assassin has me mourning for the flight of reason, tolerance and the rule of law from this country. The small band of people advocating that liberals confront this blood-thirsty mob in the streets has me worried for their sanity.

Dramatic? Sure.

That’s how I’ve felt since the assassination of Salmaan Taseer.

I’ve tried to write many times since it happened. Maybe it’s not the words hiding from me but me hiding from the words that will spell out in cold, indelible ink, what Pakistan has become.

Escapist? Sure.

You have to be one if you want to live in a country where 500 lawyers will sign a petition to defend the murderer, but not one will prosecute him for the crime he has proudly confessed to. You have to become an escapist when those leading the charge against intolerance are busy being intolerant of each other.

I’ve thought about writing a response, but I’ve never found the words to criticise those who do much more for this cause than I ever will.

Coward? Sure.

I’m not the only one. There are hordes of us lurking in the editorial pages of English dailies. Our pens churning out clever little eulogies for the country lost, preaching sermons of realism, hiding our cowardice under the garb of ‘reality’. Some of us have been to a protest or two for a ‘tolerant’ Pakistan, but that’s all we’ve done.

What more could we have done in the face of such violent opposition? I don’t know.

But we could have found one lawyer to represent the Taseer family. One man or woman to stand up for the rule of law, in a country that just experienced a great movement in its name, should not have to be such a tough ask.

Sad? Infinitely.

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

Two years ago when determined men and women, clad in black coats, marched down the streets of Pakistan in the face of police brutality, they stirred up the long dead hope that a new era where the rule of law held supreme was dawning. With this movement, the belief that a positive societal transformation had started, began to take root. Pakistanis’ proudly claimed that this struggle had transformed lawyers into champions of the rule of law instead of the rule of personal or group whim, which has dominated and destroyed Pakistani institutions for decades.

Two years later, the same lawyers are marching down the same roads but for different reasons; to demand the transfer of a civil judge. They are no longer reminiscent of the valiant flag bearers of the civil society force that marched for the rule of law. As they attack judicial officers, police and media people performing their duties, the flag bearers of the rule of law movement seem to have thrown down their standards and turned back the progress made by the earlier struggle.

While most people have focused attention on the violent confrontation between the police, lawyers and media persons, little attention has been given to the legitimacy of the initial demand that escalated into institutional confrontation. Demanding en-masse, marching in the streets or attacking the offices of judges does not constitute due process for complaining against a judge. Demanding the transfer of a judge is not within the legal or moral rights of members of the bar.

If the legal community has a lawful complaint against a judge, a complaint should be filed with the competent judicial authority and its subsequent decision should be accepted with the authority that is granted to it by the constitution. Lawyers cannot be allowed to become judge, jury and executioner.

Lawyers turning against the principles they stood for a few years ago, is emblematic of a graver and more problematic reality. The lawyers’ movement for the restoration of the independent judiciary has not produced the kind of social transformation that we had hoped for. It was not the turning point in our history that many claimed it to be. We remain a lawless nation ruled by personal and group interests with scant regard for the law.

The rule of law stands damaged and diminished, as those who had campaigned for its restoration have become crusaders for an unlawful demand. The step we had taken in the right direction has been nullified by this awful stumble backwards. And with the baring of the ugly face of the legal community, we have been reminded that it was just that, a step. And that the real work still needs to be done.

We must remember that sustainable change is not created overnight. It is not produced by headline making street revolutions. It is produced by the much more unglamorous policy changes that Pakistan has been avoiding and been unable to implement in many of its institutions, including bar councils. Years of corruption, mismanagement and utter disregard for merit, were unlikely to disappear with a couple of long marches. While the revolution was successful in bringing dignity and authority to the offices of the superior judiciary, it ignored the other policy imperative of sustainable change; reform of the other side of the judicial coin – the bar councils. If the leaders of the lawyers’ movement are committed to establishing the rule of law, then they must now turn their efforts to weeding out the corrupt and incompetent elements in the local bar councils that mar the dignity of the legal profession.

Published in The Express Tribune, October 7^th, 2010.

Where is Osama bin Laden? He could be hiding in the mountains of Pakistan, or Afghanistan or maybe hanging out in the south of France. It shouldn’t matter. In the nine long years since 9/11, we’ve seen the world change and we’ve seen al Qaeda’s empire expand rapidly both in popularity and complexity. It’s no longer controlled by one man or one militia and continuing to fixate on the perpetrators of the “original sin” will hardly lead to success in the war on terror.

In Hillary Clinton’s most recent visit to Pakistan, she once again said, what is fast becoming the American government’s favourite catch-phrase when interacting with Pakistan: “Where is Osama?” This is followed by an insinuation of “we know that some elements in the [Pakistan] establishment know where he is.” Well if you know the people who know then why don’t you just tell us so that we could expedite the process of finding Osama and get on with the real task of reconstructing a world forever changed by the perpetrators of terrorist acts and the war
on terror.

If the case of Pakistan is at all any kind of example to the world, then the world should be aware that al Qaeda is not just a hydra with many heads but it has spawned off and given rise to countless other terrorist enterprises that operate under their own leadership and mandates. If Osama is found and prosecuted by the Americans, it will not accomplish much, unless he is some kind of genius enterprise manager who is able to keep his fingers on the pulse of every rag-tag terrorist group out there and coordinate, sanction and finance their operations. If that is the case then taking him out will definitely hamper the functioning of Terror Inc but it will not put an
end to it.

For far too long, America has focused on the image of the perpetrators of these terror networks as people they could bomb out of caves. However, time and again, terror groups around the world have shown their skills and savvy in using technology and complex financial transactions to their benefit. Terror Inc seems to be a sophisticated conglomerate of smaller terrorist outfits that need to be defeated using a more refined approach than consistently harping on finding and prosecuting one man.

Clinton’s recent comments in Pakistan suggesting that the Pakistani government is hiding Osama (or at least knows about his presence) speak volumes about the lack of trust between the US and Pakistan. It also reveals that America is still fixated on a rather narrow approach to defeating the menace of terrorism. And it makes the Americans look either incompetent or petulant. If the US government despite all its military might, superior intelligence resources and effective diplomacy is unable to get past the layers of secrecy that the Pakistani government supposedly shroud regarding Osama’s location then either the former is incompetent or the latter is far more creative and competent than it lets on.

So in the interest of world peace, Ms Clinton should stop insinuating that we know where Osama is. If she knows something then please come out with it and save us having to play this game of cat and mouse. We have more important matters to tend to than finding one man. We are a nation at war with a variety of terrorist militias spanning the length and breadth of our country. We have young boys and girls being recruited by terrorist organisations each day and we have thousands that are pushed closer to it due to hunger, poverty and lack of justice. We need to focus our energy on formulating a comprehensive strategy to deal with rising militancy and its underlying causes. Finding Osama should be far down on our list of national priorities and yours.

Published in The Express Tribune, July 24^th, 2010.

It seems only two kinds of people in Pakistan have protection, VIPs and the terrorists. The common people are left to fend for themselves as the bulk of our security forces are deployed in front of political and bureaucratic palaces. Given the state’s failure to provide security to common citizen, we’ve seen an increasing privatisation of this critical government function. Private security companies are flourishing in Pakistan. Homes and businesses in upscale localities have contracted private actors to provide security. Unfortunately, most Pakistanis cannot afford private security and remain without adequate safety.

This was painfully obvious during the attack on Data Darbar. As terrorists massacred innocents, security arrangements seemed particularly inadequate. Interestingly, at the rally held the next day to condemn these attacks, there seemed to be no shortage of protection. This was not provided by the state but by people in civilian clothes carrying guns of all shapes and sizes. As clerics, vowed to seek revenge and urged others to do the same, it was frighteningly disconcerting to see the gunmen that surrounded them and to think of what havoc they were capable of wreaking with that fire power.

Interestingly, the police personnel present did not seem to think this was a problem. They stood by watching silently as weapons were openly brandished and fired into the air. Over the years, given the lack of security, we have become used to seeing citizens brandishing heavy firearms. But surely, in this new atmosphere of increasing terror, volatile sentiments and brutal killings, there should be an embargo on weapon ownership and their display in public.

I remember a rally led by Maulana Masood Azhar after his release from an Indian prison as a result of the hijacking of an Indian Airlines plane. This confirmed terrorist paraded around in an open jeep with an extremely heavily armed escort, to a public rally where he incited further violence and hatred. The display of arms was symbolic of his power and was used as a tool to awe and intimidate spectators.

But why blame just the bearded gent, when all and sundry in power in Pakistan are responsible for the same? Having a heavily armed entourage is symbolic of power and prestige for our politicians as well. There seems to be an arms race brewing in the circles of power which leads people to hire bigger and better guns than those around them.  The only casualty is the common citizen who suffers at the hands of an increasingly armed society.

Easy access to weapons and their unchecked use in public is a major contributor in increasing levels of violence and killing. Revamping laws to suit present times is essential. There is an urgent need to de-weaponise Pakistani society. And we should begin by enacting laws that prevent the public use and display of firearms by everyone. And then we can go on to tackling the knottier issue of the sale of these arms.

In the past, de-weaponisation drives have targeted particular groups for political reasons. But for national security reasons, this drive must target all offenders equally. People should be asked to register firearms per existing laws and ownership of certain firearms should be banned. And our political leadership should lead the charge in this change by demilitarising their mustachioed entourages. Given the havoc that these politicians have wreaked on Pakistani society, I’m not sure how worthy or deserving they are of such security. The state needs to do a better job at providing security to citizens and in demonising guns as weapons of terror and ruthless killing rather than weapons of power and prestige.

So if our exalted political leadership could stop toting guns and free up some state security resources from policing and protecting their social activities, maybe we could reduce the loss of life to the common citizen.

Published in The Express Tribune, July 8^th, 2010.

Only 12 countries in the world have acted upon the ideological commitment to ensure women’s participation in the formal political arena, as embodied by the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and the Beijing Platform for Action. Pakistan is one of them. Under the Local Government Ordinance of 2001, 33 per cent of seats at all tiers of local government and 17 per cent in the national and provincial legislatures were reserved for women. Given the long history of discrimination against women and their exclusion from politics, this was a revolutionary step.

As a result, since elections in 2002 a record number of women have contested the polls and joined the ranks of legislators. However, concerns remained that women are powerless proxies for male relatives but women members of the PPP Punjab Assembly have put to rest any such concerns with great displays of aggression and power.

For far too long we have associated macho deep-throated growling, shouting and name calling in menacing voices with Sultan Rahi but the women MPs of Punjab are not to be left behind.

On June 14, before the budget for the province was presented, PPP MPA Sajida Mir from Lahore said that there was rampant rigging in rural areas where women were heavily influenced by feudals. She praised Iffat Liaquat of the PML-N who had won an election from Chakwal despite not having the backing of the feudal elite. Now this would sound like a fairly normal conversation to you unless you happen to be a feudal from Chakwal.

Luckily MPA Fouzia Behram, belonging to the same party as Ms Mir, was on hand to act the part (or embody the true likeness) of an enraged feudal from Chakwal. Ms Mir bellowed that MPAs from Lahore are ignorant. And in order to truly put the erring non-feudal in her place, she decided to insult her a little more by labelling her with the most derogatory word she could find in her feudal dictionary —“kammi” which means from a low caste. Ms Mir remained calm and reminded the enraged feudal that this insulted not just her but the philosophy of the party that both MPAs represent, not to mention the majority of its supporters since most of them happen to be “kammis”. This further enraged Ms Behram who then charged towards Ms Mir and tried to slap her.

Ladies, in this day and age of political crisis and misery for the entire country, couldn’t you maybe reserve your passions for topics of greater importance and substance like the budget, the state of education, healthcare or inflation? And could you please try and take the job of legislating on behalf of your constituents a little more seriously than the men who have failed us for so many years?

Published in The Express Tribune, June 22^nd, 2010.