The regime’s culture — I

Someone working in the Presidency remarked the other day, feigning incredulity, “Do you really think that you can influence decision-making through newspaper articles?” In other words, they cared a hoot for what the papers said. Not an unexpected reaction from the lot that inhabits the Presidency. They are not known for their erudition. They were put there to do nothing and they are doing it rather well. But it’s very unlike the approach of their icon, Benazir Bhutto (BB), who in contrast, read voraciously and what is more, she had absolutely no reservations interacting with critics. In fact, she seemed to relish the prospect, seeking them out, inviting them to meet with her and, many a time, tasking her staff to meet with them on her behalf and convey to her what more they may have to say. Now and then, she agreed with her critics and even when she did not, she invariably paid heed. In short BB, was always eager to learn. One feisty lady opponent, now a devoted admirer of BB, was prone to criticise and ridicule BB and her policies. However, BB did not take umbrage. What BB wanted to know was whether the criticism was valid? Criticism, she felt strongly, was necessary.

All too often, the intellect is fooled by the heart. A contrary opinion of someone for whom one has a visceral dislike is not only resented, but becomes yet another bone of contention. BB, who believed that hate was a wasted emotion, had overcome this failing. She was almost never offended by criticism, so much so that given the outrageous things written about her, one wondered what spurred her on more: The goodwill of her friends or the vitriol of her enemies.

In a society like ours where gossip and rumours are aplenty; where people lie when it is easier to tell the truth; where ‘we speak the truth not so much as we would, but as much as we dare’, honesty is a rare commodity and therefore invaluable. Nevertheless, governments lie, prevaricate, obfuscate and assume false faces — all to no gainful end. In fact, when it comes to levelling with the people, governments act as if the public, rather than the adversary, is the greater threat. I recall an instance in the early 80s when a former foreign secretary was denying that Pakistan was arming the Mujahideen. “We are not”, he was blabbing, “a conduit of arms for the Mujahideen fighting in Afghanistan”. A little earlier he had privately told us precisely the opposite. When I suggested that we should speak the truth, because anyway by then it was an open secret, and justify our assistance on the grounds that the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan by the Soviets was illegal and hence unacceptable, he hit the ceiling. He said that it would offer a pretext for the USSR to invade Pakistan. “Oh,” I recall remarking, “the Red Army merely awaits your confirmation before advancing.”

Published in The Express Tribune, March 12^th, 2011.