Cynicism in Pakistan

The title of this piece appears to be problematic. One can argue how cynicism may be confined to geographical specifications such as one of Pakistani type. But Pakistani cynicism may be justified on the ground that whatever its general meaning, the way a cynicism formulates in a society makes it special. Thus this piece tries to identify specific Pakistani attributes of cynicism.

Let’s try to have an idea of what cynicism generally stands for. First, it implies that all the ‘people are motivated by selfishness.’ Another most important and most common trait is that a cynic’s ‘outlook is scornfully and often habitually negative.’

As a philosophical term cynicism means something quite different. It was ‘a sect of ancient Greek philosophers who believed virtue to be the only good and self-control to be the only means of achieving virtue.’ So, philosophically cynicism relates to the Cynics and their beliefs.

In order to understand the wider meaning of cynicism, a diving into the history of the word may prove interesting. The word cynic comes from the Greek kunikos, which was originally used as an adjective meaning "doglike," from kun, "dog."  Thus a cynic equates this human life with a dog's life. Probably that was why the word was applied to the Cynic philosophers. The great Greek Cynic, Diogenes of Sinope was nicknamed as Kun. It is told he used to bark, urinate, and masturbate in public.

The first ever English instance of the use of the word cynic meaning “faultfinder” dates back to 1596. It is in this sense that the word cynic found its modern meaning. However, this sense of the word may also be attributed to the Cynics who were wont to find flaws in others. It is this faultfinding which helped formulate the belief characteristic of the cynics of today that human behavior is determined by selfishness. (This discussion of the word is based on an online dictionary.)

So it’s two attributes which may generally be associated with cynicism: First, negativity; and, second, faultfinding. That means that every cynic, be he/she Pakistani or otherwise, would usually be showing a negative attitude towards every thing; and that he/she would, almost as a rule, find fault with every thing. What’s wrong with this? When the things are really negative, they must be dubbed so! When the things are really faulty, they must be dubbed so! What’s wrong with that?

In the context of Pakistan, where most of the things most of the times are negative, why they must not be dubbed negative? And, where most of the things most of the times are faulty, why they must not be dubbed faulty? Why then such a Pakistani, who calls a spade a spade, not be called a Cynic? In the same vein, why then such a trend or attitude not be diagnosed as Pakistani Cynicism?

Actually there is a truth, which is theoretically uncontestable, but practically sometimes may be contestable, and that is what I want to contest. Here is an attempt at building the various shapes of things they may possibly take.

First, all the things are negative and faulty all the times. Second, all the things are negative and faulty most of the times. Third, all the things are negative and faulty some of the times. Fourth, most of the things are negative and faulty all the times. Fifth, some of the things are negative and faulty all the times. Sixth, some of the things are negative and faulty all the times. Seventh, some of the things are negative and faulty most of the times. Eighth, some of the things are negative and faulty some of the times.

Hence, it may be concluded that in a real situation what may practically be not undeniable is that some of the things are not negative and faulty some of the times. It is this truth which every cynic is blind to see and admit; or he/she develops or adopts an attitude which makes him/her see every thing as negative and faulty. This they do as a rule which may only exceptionally admit of an exception. Of course, all the Pakistani cynics are like that; but it is not in that that they show any characteristics specifically Pakistani cynicism exhibits.

No doubt, Pakistani cynics see every thing as negative and faulty. They do not admit of any thing as not negative and not faulty even some of the times. Apart from that, what is specifically Pakistani about them is that they themselves are not negative and not faulty. This should rather be phrased thus: The Pakistani cynics believe they are not negative and not faulty all the times. In contrast to that, every thing is negative and faulty all the times. That’s their first Pakistani attribute.

The second attribute of the Pakistani cynics is that they believe whatever negativity (or negative things) and whatever faultyness (or faulty things) exist responsibility for that rests with all the other Pakistanis, and they themselves are never ever to be blamed a bit for that. Associated with this second one is the third attribute which smacks of an exclusive claim to the possession of the truth that the Pakistani cynics believe only they have a claim to. It’s quite possible that this or that cynic, be he/she Pakistani or otherwise, may be a perfect arrogant, since he/she is in possession of the truth and since he/she plays no role at all if all the things have gone negative and faulty; however, that may not be identified as one more attribute characterizing Pakistani cynicism.

In the end, it may suffice to add that in Pakistan the cynicism has found its way in all the domains of life, but the one which is most dangerous is political. Some of the Pakistani political cynics, such as Imran Khan, are playing havoc with the political system. The others such as Najam Sethi, Ayaz Amir, Ayesha Siddiqa, are there to confound, in varying degrees, already rampant confusion, and are influencing the political opinion negatively and to the detriment of the long term interests of the citizens of Pakistan. (In another piece, the writer would like to elaborate upon this political cynicism and its impact on the political evolution of Pakistan.)

Note: This article was completed on July 30, and originally posted in November 2014. 

Why Pakistan is not a viable state?

Better to start with two clarifications: First, this piece does not raise the question of Pakistani state’s viability in the sense Pakistan’s Leftists and liberals are wont to discuss it. They say something like that: It’s unviable because it was created by the British in line with their policy of Divide and Rule; It’s unviable because it was created by the narrow-mindedness of Hindus or the Congress, or the stubbornness of Muslims or the League. They also hold that: It’s unviable because religion is never the basis of any state. The writer prospectively believes that states are not rational entities; they may come into existence, and disintegrate and disperse into more entities with or without any rational justifications. It’s like individuals or groups of human beings who want to live separately for any concrete or imagined grievances or none at all that states are born and withered. The crux of the argument is that what’s important is not how and why new entities of states emerge, what’s fatally important is how the newly emerged states live, grow and perform on the scale of their citizens’ rights and well-being.

Second clarification tries to address the universally prevailing view of Pakistan as a failed or failing state. This view derives its arguments mostly from political and economic realms. It’s a complex argument comprising many a heterogeneous theses. For instance, it raises such issues: Military’s hegemony vis-à-vis civilian and political affairs; Intelligence agencies’ role in political and state’s affairs; Absence of democratic values and democratic polity; Centre’s hold; Provincial disharmonies; Ethnic resentment; Linguistic discords; Economic subservience of lower classes; Inefficient state machinery; Separation of the East Pakistan as Bangladesh; etc. Various combinations of such politico-economic factors invite the epithet of a failing and disintegrating state for Pakistan. The writer has nothing to do with this view either.

The above-discussed factors do make sense of what has been and is happening right now in Pakistan. One may quip: The political drama being played at the moment in Islamabad proves the unviability of the state of Pakistan! The writer wants to push the argument deeper into the political abyss Pakistan has been thrown into; and, aims at going beyond the constitutional argument for the viability of a state. That no doubt applies to the first two decades or so of Pakistan’s history, when there was a display of various constitutions appearing and disappearing on the political celluloid. Why this was the case then that now a constitution was enforced and now it stood abrogated? It is here that the argument of this writer formulates itself. Certainly it was not mere geographical, political, ethnic, linguistic, or economic differences which were responsible for the lingering constitutional crisis facing early Pakistan. It was something more and other and different than that which caused that constitutional impermanence. In fact, it was that “something” which lied behind and resulted in the formation of Bangladesh.

But what about the four decades (and the fifth lapping to this day) which lived through the company of a constitution promulgated in 1973? Where had gone that “something” during that constitutional intactness? Of course, the devil did not vanish then, but became distributed in details. The constitution was verily there, but seldom enforced and followed in letter and spirit. Up till now, it has been operated upon by three openly declared Martial Laws (1977, 1999, and 2007). As is believed and upheld by many analysts that even when the army is not in the saddle, in certain matters especially and otherwise generally it keeps the reins in its hands. Be that as it may, it is politicians the responsibility lies with whom to run the affairs of the state in accordance with the provisions of the constitution, and it is they who criminally share that with others, whoever they are. Not only politicians collude with the army and intelligence agencies, but they when in power do not bother with the dictates of the constitution. Let it be mentioned here that it completely excludes the spirit of the constitution, more significant than its letter, which never finds any followers in politicians. No denying that both usurpers and lawful rulers treat the constitution in a manner as if it is there for them to manipulate and not to abide by and follow in letter and spirit. Again it is that “something” which may clearly be seen underlying here in this type of anti-constitutional politics.

What’s that “something?” I would call it that minimum consensus which is necessary for any community of people to form into a political entity, i.e. a state. May it be noted here that it touches the boundaries of the notion of a social contract, but in itself it is not a social contract. In fact, when a community of people comes to institute a state, they first need to agree as to this intention that they are to be together in a state where whatever laws are to be made they will abide by them. That is that minimum consensus! It may be termed Writ of Law. Here it is taken for granted that not all the people may be in agreement with this or that law, and that’s natural; and that those who do not agree, even they are bound to follow that law, though they may try to amend, nullify or replace it with one of their choice. So, before a people enter into a social contract, they require a minimum consensus that whatever laws are enacted, regardless of their agreement or difference with them they will follow them.

Contrary to it, now and then this or that group of people, which does not agree with a set of laws, and instead of trying to get them changed in a prescribed manner, comes to violate and challenge that minimum consensus which ensures the intactness of that political union they are part of. That makes that political entity or state unviable. It is in this sense that the state of Pakistan is unviable, and presently it is PTI and PAT which are trampling that minimum consensus in the name of Azadi and Inqilab. Pakistan’s political history of about 7 decades proves that point. Be it prior to the 1973 constitution or after it, that minimum consensus has always been at stake. It is at stake now also!

Note: This article was completed on September 11 and was originally posted in October 2014.

Islamabad sit-ins – who is the culprit

In the matters of running the state of Pakistan, penetration of politics, politicians and political considerations have marred the capability of the state to think clearly, act accordingly and punish promptly; which has weakened it to such an extent that in most of the cases the state is conspicuous by its absence, resulting in increasing anarchy in the country. It was back in 1953 that Justice Munir Inquiry Report concluded thus: “And it is our deep conviction that if the Ahrar had been treated as a pure question of law and order, without any political considerations, one District Magistrate and one Superintendent of Police could have dealt with them. Consequently, we are prompted by something that they call a human conscience to enquire whether, in our present state of political development, the administrative problem of law and order cannot be divorced from a democratic bed fellow called a Ministerial Government, which is so remorselessly haunted by political nightmares. But if democracy means the subordination of law and order to political ends – then Allah knoweth best and we end the report.” (Justice Munir Inquiry Report 1954, P. 387)

The problem has now complicated so much so that a thick layer of confusion prevails from the highest courts to the lowest functionary of the state. The diagnosis Justice Munir Report made is though still valid; however, the effects of the disease the Report diagnosed have shifted the ailment to another vital area; i.e. the earlier disease has given rise to another one more fatal, i.e. how to fix responsibility. Let it be stated here that the fault lies not with laws as such, but more with their implementation. All the thinking regarding the implementation of laws, rules and regulations that exists now in every organ and institution of the state lacks clarity as far as fixing of responsibility is concerned.

With this preamble, this piece tries to analyze the political discourse taking place on the issue of Islamabad sit-ins of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf and Pakistan Awami Tehreek. The other day, after the disclosures of Javed Hashmi regarding the involvement of both PTI and PAT in a conspiracy to topple the present government of the Pakistan Muslim League-N, which allegedly had the sponsorship of certain retired officials of Army and ISI, General Mirza Aslam Beg (R) managed to present himself to a prime time TV talk show to expose another bigger conspiracy behind the sit-ins. The Big Bang he may have hoped to make by his revelations failed to release any impact. His utterances were no different from the statements of religious politicians who now and then see the hand of India, or America or Israel behind any noticeable occurrence happening in Pakistan. He tried to name US, UK, Canada and Iran as the conspirators behind the Islamabad sit-ins; he said these countries wanted martial law and anarchy in Pakistan and that the incumbent Chief of the Army Staff foiled their plot. That at best may be termed as an attempt to deflect the burden of responsibility which Javed Hashmi’s revelations put on the Army via retired security officials.

Since Azadi and Inqilab Marches of PTI and PAT started, elements in civil society and the media, and some politicians expressed their belief that the same was sponsored, as they dub it, by the establishment. Thus every development that took place in the Red Zone, be it the coming of the marchers to the Red Zone, their forcible entry into the premises of the Parliament building, their attack on the Prime Minister House, their short but significantly symbolic occupation of the Pakistan Television Headquarters, their leaders’ daily tirades tarnishing the every semblance of the writ of the state, was interpreted in the light of that belief. Thus according to such elements the culprit is the establishment, or , the retired officials of the establishment.

I have every so often reiterated that the Pakistani mind has lost a very precious function, i.e. the function of common sense. While fixing responsibility, it does not see who is the perpetrator of an act, what it tries to focus its attention on is who is behind him, as if the perpetrator is not the one who is responsible for that act, the responsible for that act is one who is behind him and has exhorted him to do the act. No doubt, law takes into account the one also who exhorted and / or abetted one to commit a crime, but it puts the burden of responsibility mainly on one who commits the crime.

It’s a social and moral case: I use an example to illustrate this fallacious thinking; that if a person asks another person to jump into a well, and he jumps into the well, who is one who should be framed with responsibility for jumping into the well? Practically, the most prevalent view in Pakistani society is: one who asked him to jump into the well! That view has taken over the commons sense thinking in every domain of the state and social life. It is like that mother who puts the blame of making his son an addict on others, and treats her son completely an innocent soul. That’s the way responsibility is put and fixed in Pakistan. One may object in Pakistan responsibility is never fixed. That’s another chronic malady the state of Pakistan is afflicted with from the day one. The present piece tries to highlight the fact that a new ploy has been developed to thwart the issue of fixing responsibility: put responsibility on everyone or on one who is not the main culprit. That’s the state aristocracy’s way of avoiding responsibility for anything done!

Hence, whether or not, it is the retired officials of the Army or any intelligence agency as Javed Hashmi blamed, or the USA, UK, Canada or Iran, or the establishment as is alleged, or any other conspirators, who are behind the the PTI and PAT’s sit-ins; whether or not PTI and PAT coalesced with any other conspiring power, that’s not the real issue. The real culprit is one who is before us, not one who is behind the mountain. The culprit is who has organized the sit-ins. It is PTI and PAT who are the culprit. It is their leaders who are the culprit!

Note: This article was completed on September 23, and was originally posted in September 2014. 

The blood of "Minorities" and the flag of Pakistan

The blood of "Minorities" and the flag of Pakistan!

Note: This comment and the picture was originally posted on August 14, 2014.

Political use of religion in Pakistan

In Pakistan, everything stands politicized. So is religion. Those who are clever enough make hay while the sun shines. Tahir-ul-Qadri is one of them and is famously know as a religio-political power seeker. He is more of a religious leader; trying his luck in politics. Since the Pakistan Awami Tehreek (PAT) was founded about two decades ago, it has constantly been failing in winning the voters’ mandate. It never made any headway in any general elections. So the PAT is a party, like so many others having this or that much of following in various parts of Pakistan, which has been forced to indulge in politics outside the parliament.

No doubt, it’s such a phenomenon which has yet to attract the attention of the social and political academics. How such parties survive and behave which remain outside the parliament since they succeed in obtaining only a few or no seats in the national or provincial assemblies. There are a number of such parties; Jamaat-e-Islami Pakistan (JIP) and Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam-F (JUI-F) are on the top of the list. What is characteristic of them is that they all are basically religious in their appearance; in reality, however, they all are politically crazy power-seekers. When they happen to win a small number of seats in a situation which puts them in a bargaining position vis-à-vis other parties needing their support to form the government, they fully take advantage of that opportunity. JUI-F excels in that gamesmanship.

In contrast, JIP is a player before the play starts. It sells its street power to negotiate as many seats from a winning-horse party as is possible. This time in the last year general elections, Pakistan Muslim League-N (PML-N) pierced the myth of its street power, possibly once and for all. Thus JIP lost whatever clout it enjoyed outside the parliamentary politics. It may be surmised that it is this significant factor which has softened its political stance towards constitutional politics. Another important factor is its apparent delinking from the security establishment the symptoms of which emerged last year under the leadership of Munawar Hasan, its former Amir. The authenticity of its present pro-constitution posture and politics, under the leadership of Siraj ul Haq, is yet to be tested against the forthcoming realpolitik.

Coincidentally, such parties share a commonality: they all evolved out of the teachings of (almost) purely religious scholars. JIP’s intellectual progenitor is Maulana Abulala Maududi; and JUI-F’s Allama Shabbir Ahmad Usmani. These parties contracted political ambitions later. The case of Tahir-ul-Qadri and the PAT is no different. As the chain of events tells, Tahir-ul-Qadri started solely as a religious scholar. It is after sometime when he had developed a substantial following that he appeared to be nurturing political aspirations, and it is then that he founded the Pakistan Awami Thereek (Interestingly its official website is a commercial domain: http://www.pat.com.pk/english/index.html).

Could it be otherwise? Could it be a case of political parties which were to be founded expressly for political purposes without involving religion? Why they happened to be inclining towards using the religious sensitivities of their followers?  Why is it so that almost all the political parties, seeking political power in the name of religion, are initially religious entities and it is only later that they thought of converting their religious following into their political following? And more than that, why is it so that these parties try to exploit the religious convictions of voters for political purposes? Be that as it may, the question is: Is it religion or is it politics that they value most? In case they value religion most, they ought not to be indulging in politics then. In case they value politics most, they should abandon political use of religion and come out openly as political parties.

It is in that spirit that I love to imagine a party forming and flourishing in Pakistan which would prefer to convert its political following into its religious following! As far as my scant knowledge of history is concerned, never ever such a party existed in any part of the world. The history is replete with such examples, however, where a religious organization when came to seize political power, it was this political power by which it stood seized later itself. The crux of the matter is that when it is politics, whether it is valued most or not, i.e. vis-à-vis religion, it is politics, from A to Z. That means seeking and holding political power is in itself an exhaustive cause; that is why it is habitually believed that everything is justified in politics.

It is here that politics miserably needs a bit of guidance from morality; otherwise, it remains mired in its own vicious cycle of seeking and holding political power at any cost and by any means, to which Pakistani citizens are a patient witness to. Morality teaches: Ends never justify means. So whatever their ends, if they come to adopt immoral and unfair means to achieve them, they lose their moral core and moral appeal. The same applies to all those parties which make political use of religion; i.e. when in order to seek political power they use religion, they lose whatever moral sensibility they possessed. Also, in the end, they come to lose whatever religion they espoused. Out of such ventures, only political tyranny comes out!

In conclusion, it may be said that whenever any religion is put to political use, not only is it drained out of its true religiosity, but its moral principle also, on which it has been built. Hence, those who claim to be the real followers of a religion and in that spirit try to use it for their political purposes verily prove to be those who are the real enemies of that religion. At best, they are politicians in disguise who might use anything, be it a religion, faith or creed, to seek political power. It is in that sense that there is no difference between Tahir-ul-Qadri and Imran Khan. Both are Machiavellian! Both are seeking political power! At any cost! By any means!

Note: This article was completed on August 7, and was originally posted in August 2014.

Gangsterism – religious and political

The place is not far from Islamabad. A three hour drive and one is far away from almost everything Pakistani. Not only is the weather pleasanter; this small place presents the ethos of a non-Pakistani world. Here it is just one road on both sides of which are located a number of hotels and other shops. It was evening time and I was sitting in the restaurant of a hotel and looking through the window-glass out on the road. It was no crowding here, only a few visitors doing shopping and walking on the road. On the right side from where the road seems to come, I could see just the same scene. Look straight where the road was goes to, I could see the road turning towards left and disappearing.

The sky was cloudy and a cool breeze was flowing with a soothing hiss. All of a sudden, this calmness was broken by a rising noise. As if a crowd was chanting slogans with full force and creating gargantuan sound of their motorbikes’ engines! Everyone and everything stood still in anticipation of it. The shoppers and walkers all stopped wherever they were. First, young bearded men riding on motorbikes appeared. They were holding flags of a religious (political) group. Then open loader vehicles came forward. Men of all ages were aboard with the same flags waving and shouting slogans. Then there were others riding on motorbikes; but it was not a very big crowd. They all stayed there awhile at the turn of the road.

As if just now they have conquered this place, they with a new vigor started chanting the same religious (political) slogans. All the shopkeepers and shoppers and visitors were watching them as if mindlessly. For about ten minutes, they performed the ritual and then moved ahead, maybe to conquer the other part of this place. I tried to take a sip of the tea, but it was all cold.

Years back, it was in Lahore and in a very congested area that the same type of ritual I witnessed. It was late afternoon. Suddenly the shouts of slogans started creating ripples in the air. In such localities such things are strange and folks eagerly try to make out what’s that has come to happen in their midst. The shouts were coming closer. Like others, I too tried to have a glimpse. A young bearded man was leading a group of boys as old as 15 or 14 years, and as young as 6 or 7 years. They were about 25-30 in total.

I asked for another cup of tea. My mind was disturbed: what the hell all this is about. Is not Pakistan a predominantly Muslim majority country? Religious minorities have no substantial number here and maybe that is why they enjoy no religious freedom! Here everywhere there are only Muslims. Then what is that such groups, which are not too few, but too much in number, are up to? What do they want to achieve?

Let this point be clear here that there is no truly religious party or group in Pakistan. The undeniable fact is that almost all of them, though they present themselves as religious, are fundamentally political. They have political aspirations and political cravings. No doubt, the truly religious do not indulge in politics.

Also another undeniable fact is that almost all of them use religion for their political purposes. They all have political motives, be they are individuals, groups or parties clad in religious garb.

Meanwhile, one friend who was sleeping upstairs in his room came down and joined me. He asked: What was happening on the road here in such a place? I was confused. I had no words to tell him what it was. Just that moment it flashed through my mind. Instead of answering, I put a question to him: have you ever watched such a movie in which gangs of motorbike riders are shown committing crimes. They are in fact criminal gangs. They commit crimes in groups. They ride heavy motorbikes with powerful engines, the thundering noise of which causes great alarm and fear.

Here in such a peaceful place, it was such a gang of motorbike riders and others boarding on open vehicles, but I cannot make any sense what they were after, after all, I told him. Instantly, I tried to clarify that this was not a criminal gang in the strict sense of the word. They are different. They do not commit crimes like criminal motorbike gangs do. However, what is obvious, they make use of all of the tactics which such gangs of criminals use. They use motorbikes, and the sound of their engines, and the group psychology of creating fear. Above all that, they use the flag of religion to silence others and to justify as well as sanctify their gangsterism.

He concurred. We did remember the days of our studying in a university, where a group of students affiliated with a religious (political) party used the same tactics of criminal gangs riding heavy motorbikes. We did remember and realized that on the night of every new year, this group riding on motorbikes in dozens or in hundreds try to harass and punish and torture the revelers on the roads. And all that in the name of religion! They are in fact gangsters. Or actually whatever their objectives are, good or bad, they use the ways and tactics of gangs.

This helped us see what the political and (religio)political parties are doing in Pakistan. They now and then resort to the tactics and methods of gangsters. Lately, in most of the cases, it is religious groups and parties which have often come to act like gangsters. In a philosophical sense, it means that both politics and religion have abandoned their moral appeal and moral ways. Both of them are intent upon achieving their ends at any cost by any means. No matter these means are good or bad. They never care a dime about their means. That is how both religious and political parties have acquired and adopted the ways and tactics of gangsterism in Pakistan.

Note: This article was completed on July 22, and was originally posted in August 2014.

Media wars

It is essential to seek out enemy agents who have come to conduct espionage against you and to bribe them to serve you. Give them instructions and care for them. Thus doubled agents are recruited and used. [Sun Tzu]

Before March 9, 2007, it was all dark on the horizon of Pakistan. A military dictator was ruling while dressed in khaki uniform; he was intent upon continuing his rule for the next 5 years; and the criminal politicians were all ready to help him rule for more than a hundred years. Such was the hopelessness that no rational being could dream of a silver lining. One could only fear what happened to Iraq after it grabbed Kuwait, may not happen to Pakistan.

All of a sudden, and it was just like a bolt from the blue, a hope started taking shape. First time in Pakistan, the point was made that the government must be run by the book. So, the lawyers’ movement taught the people of Pakistan three lessons in democracy: constitutionalism, rule of law, and fundamental rights. During this movement, the dynamics of Pakistani society changed the repercussions of which will be felt far deeper into the future.

One of the new forces that emerged in the midst of that movement is electronic media. Rather it may rightly be asserted that not only the plethora of TV channels got allied and aligned with the people at large, but they realized their power also. That made them self-conscious elephantine! Ensuing of a fierce competition among them was quite natural. In a Robbinsian economic sense, viewership as well as advertisement revenue was scarce, and they fought for a larger share forgetting all the norms and rules of the game. The one which won not only a larger portion of the viewership but revenue also became the target of envy and conspiracies by other lesser obtainers.

Previously, it was all melodrama. There was only one TV channel, the state-run PTV. For its survival, it was dependent on the doles from the state, and it blew the stat’s trumpet. In order to survive, it’s still extorting Rs.35 every month from every TV set owner by using the might of the state. Emergence of dozens of new TV channels, which of course were to be run like businesses, completely altered the scene on the stage. The state-run PTV slipped behind the curtain, and lost both its viewership and revenue to the new breed of TV channels, which in no way were dependent on the state. Instead they depend on their market of viewers who indirectly yield revenue to them. Thus, in the world of electronic media in Pakistan loyalty to the market is the rule, and loyalty to the state and its institutions is an exception (loyalty to the constitution is quite something else).

As the art of the statecraft requires, the private TV channels were brought under a regulator, Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA). However, in essence the ruling political parties came to control these channels for political gains and privileges. That the regulator in this case, as in so many other cases, was not given autonomy and the government kept it under its authority, it remained spineless, resulting in a chaotic broadcasting environment. A number of attempts on the part of these private TV channels to self-regulate failed, which provided ample space to the state and its various institutions and agencies to dictate their agenda items to this or that TV channel.

But that was not like PTV days, the golden days of melodrama and happy eulogies. The competition among these channels drove them to uncharted territories and unfathomed depths. They have already realized their elephantine powerfulness during the lawyers’ movement when they helped defeat a military dictator. Now they have their own fish to fry. They started questioning every practice of the state, its various institutions, including the security entities; the pivot and the point of reference was and is the constitution of Pakistan. The stories and acts which previously went untold and unheard, now found tongues and ears. The tales of Saleem Shahzad, Umar Cheema, and Hamid Mir had a rebellious tone, and challenged the perpetrators. It may also be explained thus that where politicians were required to act boldly was taken up by a TV channel itself. This shows the utter desperation of those who have no hope of justice.

Under the circumstances, the most relevant question is about the role of the state and the politicians. Related with it are other crucial questions, such as: why the constitution is not followed in letter and spirit by the various institutions and entities, be they security or otherwise. Or why the politicians fail to enforce a constitutional rule in Pakistan. Why there is blatant power play which in fact repudiates the spirit and provisions of the constitution. Why the politicians fail in securing the fundamental rights to the citizens, be they journalists. Why the politicians fail to set up independent and autonomous regulators and let them do their job.

In other words, it means had there been rule of law in Pakistan, no institution and entity would have engaged itself in un-constitutional activities. Had there been independent and autonomous courts, no suppressing of the fundamental rights would have been possible. Had there been due accountability mechanisms existent at every level of the state institutions including the Army and the intelligence agencies, there would have been no cases such as of Saleem Shahzad, Umar Cheema and Hamid Mir on the one hand, and on the other, no media campaigns against any security entity may have been unleashed. But all that remains completely absent in Pakistan; which emboldens every individual and every institution to do what they like.

No doubt, the anarchy prevailing in the realm of electronic media in Pakistan at the moment may not have been the case, had there been an independent and autonomous PEMRA, which would have acted in the nick of time in case of any irregularity committed by any media house. However, the PEMRA is still conspicuously absent from the scene whereas weeks have passed that a media war has been raging in Pakistan. That speaks volume about the failure of the ruling PML-N’s leadership!

Note: This article was completed on May 27, and was originally posted in July 2014.

Mr. Khan! Let’s have a candid talk

Mr. Khan now be serious! Somehow the circumstances have made you a political leader. Now you lead a political party, which has a considerable following; no matter which class or classes it consists of. The followers of your party, they are all Pakistanis, and enjoy the same political choices as the followers of other political parties do.

It was just non-serious and out of sync when recently you spoke in Islamabad, and said, ‘I was boring; New Pakistan was not anywhere on the scene coming into being. Then I thought something had to be done.’ Regarding this, you need to ask yourself: Is it political? Is there in politics anything like boring, and that it exhorts you to do something, such as organizing rallies and doing “political fun.”

It’s quite a pertinent question that must be put to you and you must answer it clearly; no hanky-panky, please! What you and your party, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, stand for. As it may not be a difficult task to see what other parties stand for. But, mind it, it’s next to impossible to decipher what you and your party stand for. What’s the unique message you have set up a new political party to deliver?

Here are two issues you and your party took up just for nothing, and, it appears, then left them as they were, just for nothing. Raymond Davis case; and the Nato-supply blockade case. It may be asked why in the first instance these cases were taken up, and how they fitted in with your total political outlook and the PTI’s political philosophy, if any.

In the same vein, it may be asked why the PTI and you have gone for a tirade against a media-house. What political gain will it bring to the PTI is not clear? Contrary to it, it tells about the untrustworthiness of your political acumen. As a matter of political grounding, every politician keeps his / her eyes focused on the intended and unintended consequences of his statements as well as his / her actions; he / she knows if he / she says “Yes” to something, at the same time he / she means “No” to something. So by targeting a media house, you have exposed your siding with the security agencies.

That’s the politics of the moment which even a novice politician knows well. Mr. Khan, you know your recent outbursts, regardless of the fact whether it has been caused by some personal injury to you or it’s a matter of PTI’s policy, have earned you and your party a negative rating, even in the eyes of those who voted for your party. Mr. Khan, have a moment of reflection and calculate what your party is gaining out of it.

So, be it known to you that whatever you say and do is political and has political implications; i.e. it will earn you some voters and at the same time lose some voters. So be so gracious to yourself and to your party so as to make an estimate of political loss and gain before you go for anything.

Let’s come back to the point: what is it the PTI stand for. Ah, you might retort, ‘we stand for a welfare state!’ Fine, that’s a good answer. But you see all other parties want Pakistan to be a welfare state. How your party is different from them? Or, you see that your party is not a notch different from other political entities!

So, is your party that belongs to the same ilk? Or if different, kindly prove that by your actions: this is how in thinking and in practice you are not like the lot of the politicians the citizens of Pakistan are having and tolerating! Do something that brings credibility to your views and actions, and makes you stand out of the crowd.

Mr. Khan, try to reflect why you so often change your positions. Or if you change your position, try to make others understand why you changed it! That will make you credible! Also, Mr. Khan, political positions once taken should not be altered on whimsical grounds. Your followers and others are rational beings; they have every right to question you on your changing of your stances regularly.

But, then again, the question is what political position you or PTI has taken that you both stand for over a long term perspective. That aims at trying to understand what unique identity PTI possesses and you enjoy as its lone leader. And that means what political contribution you and your party is capable of making to the polity of Pakistan. And that amounts to asking also how you and the PTI may be able to partake in the political evolution of Pakistan.

Ji, Mr. Khan! that implies a negative judgment too. In case, you and your PTI has no program which may push forward the political and constitutional evolution of Pakistan, what else you and your party is in the political arena for then. Let it be clarified here that political and constitutional evolution is what nations and countries strive for and they strive for it so that the citizens are free to enjoy fruits of their talent and efforts, their lives and their freedoms.

Or would you mind enlightening the electorate, what else is there you and your party has in store for the hapless people of this country! Mr. Khan, be positive and try to give the electorate something they may be proud of, such as dignity of their persons and self-respect, which other political parties do not have on their agenda; and mind that for this to achieve one do not need to be a prime minister, or in the government.

For this to achieve, you and your party needs to do politics with responsibility by espousing and following certain principles. For instance, while in opposition in the center you and the PTI may opt for exposing the merciless day-to-day exploitation of the ordinary citizens by the machinery of the state of Pakistan, which you are so eager to be chief executive of. And you and the PTI, while in power in the Khyber-Pakhtunkhawa, should exemplify this is how the provincial machinery facilitate the citizens with due respect instead of degrading and exploiting them.

But, for this to achieve, you and the PTI need to get your act together; try to do it. Best of luck, Mr. Khan!

Note: This article was completed on May 18 and was originally posted in June 2014.

Mr. Prime Minister! It’s time to act

Mr. Prime Minister! You are better placed than any other Pakistani citizen, since you are sitting in the center of the state. The office you occupy by virtue of your electoral mandate is where the state authority converges, and it is from where authority flows to other institutions of the state in accordance with the dictates of the constitution of the country.

Mr. Prime Minister! You are the Chief Executive of the state of Pakistan, and as far as flow of information regarding the affairs of the state is concerned, in comparison to you this writer is merely an ignoramus. In case the present government of your party is toppled, the first casualty will be you, the prime minister; that means whatever future plans are being hatched anywhere, or whatever conspiracies are being woven in any quarters of the corridors of the powers against your government, you must be in the know. Also, I may assume that being the prime minister some of the intelligence agencies might directly be reporting to you.

However, the writer feels apprehensive, though his sources of information are only those common outlets of news and news-analysis which somehow do not pass on the truth as it is to their readers / audience; but no doubt some of the crumbs make their way to us. This writer reads daily newspapers diligently and tries to see what analyses are available on various websites, and how the political analysts on the TV talk shows are seeing the situation prevailing in the country. That helps him to form a view of what is happening and what may be going to happen in the days or months to come. On the basis of all that, the writer feels something bad is brewing in the higher echelons of the state, and as Iqbal the poet has said: Teri barbadaiyon kay mashwaray hain aasmanon mein (In the heavens are going on consultations for your destruction).

Mr. Prime Minister! In view of these developments it’s time to get your act together, and take a stock of the situation which is getting from bad to worse day by day.  This writer may not be all that correct, but there are conflicting signals coming from the members of your cabinet and functionaries of the government who smell a rat. That means all is not well that seems running well, and the opinionated commentators feel it may not end well too.

Mr. Prime Minister! Pakistan is already 66 years old and is yet to be identified as a state run strictly by the book. You know the reasons well, since you worked with them who do not wanted it to be a constitutional state, and at the same time you tasted their wrath when they overthrew your government and trampled the constitution.

Mr. Prime Minister! No doubt you were courageous enough then to keep the dictates of the constitution intact and took certain daring steps such as dismissal of General Pervez Musharraf, the then chief of the army staff. But at that moment, the constitution of the country, which is ultimately a moral document, was defeated by them who are endowed with the might of the gun in accordance with the same constitution which they violate, suspend and abort.

Mr. Prime Minister! You know well, and it is just to remind you, that why the constitution failed then and suffered a defeat at the hands of unruly state actors. As the generals and war experts suggest time is of essence! It was time which defeated both of you and the constitution of the country since you didn’t act in time or on time. The anti-constitution forces acted first and got the situation in their hands. You took too much time to think and act, and when you acted it was already too late. So technically it was time which defeated you, i.e. the time you took to think and act.

Yeah, Mr. Prime Minister! There is another argument which talks of gradual change and slow improvement. That argument cites the increasing awareness regarding the sanctity of the constitutionalism as a step forward. But at the same time it may also be argued that the last 66 years have witnessed many steps forward which finally converted into two steps back.

Mr. Prime Minister! The situation has worsened to the last the point, though there always remains a possibility of more and more worsening of it. Evil knows no end. That’s why just minor surgeries won’t do now; the time for such small cuts and incisions already belongs to the past. Radical and major surgery is the need of the hour; you must act here and now!

Napoleon Bonaparte, one of the greatest military leaders, said: “Take time to deliberate, but when the time for action comes, stop thinking and go in.” Mr. Prime Minister! You take too much time to think and deliberate; that doesn’t augur well for your actions. As for the unconstitutional acts of the state actors are concerned, Pakistan does not require slow and gradual taming; it needs a thumping blow so that all the anti-constitution forces learn a lesson.

Mr. Prime Minister! It is time to act before it’s too late. Before someone else trashes you, your government and the constitution, trash him by taking recourse to the provisions of the constitution which empowers you as its highest executive authority.

Mr. Prime Minister! Advise the president to call for a joint sitting of the parliament and order live telecast of the proceedings of that sitting, and take both the representatives and the citizens of the country into confidence. Share with them whatever is being woven around you and being hatched here and there against a constitutional government, and expose all such actors and take decisive action against them and show your mettle and authority to all who are intent upon violating the constitution. Not only is this the proper time to do the needful, it’s a do or die choice for the constitution of Pakistan also!

Note: This article was completed on June 15, and was originally posted in June 2014.

Hopeless in Pakistan

The cities and suburbs of Pakistan are bursting with millions of teeming citizens, old and young, men and women and children alike. They earn their livelihood by small selling of goods or services which unimaginably involves hard labor with meager income. Or they are employed by private entrepreneurs who have to incessantly struggle against the vagaries of state’s regulators and tax officials. They form the larger chunk of a population of 18 million plus. It is they who cast vote to send a political party in the parliament, but cherish no hope this will ameliorate their life conditions they know from their past experience. This is one side of the picture.

The other side reveals itself in the headlines of the daily newspapers and news channels. One newspaper’s headline reads as: army chief pays morale boosting visit to ISI HQ (Inter-Services Intelligence Headqarters). Another headline says: defense ministry seeks cancellation of Geo’s license. It’s in the wake of a murderous attack on a prominent journalist and Geo News’ popular talk show host, Hamid Mir. He has survived despite six bullets injured him seriously and is under treatment in a hospital. His brother, Amir Mir, a known journalist, allegedly put the blame on the ISI and its head Lieutenant General Zaheer-ul-Islam saying Mir told him he feared they would kill him. One breaking headline news tells ‘Pakistan successfully test fires Hatf-III, a short range ballistic missile.’ Another newspaper highlights Chief of Army Staff, General Raheel Sharif’s visit to the ISI HQ and his statement that ISI is a “strategic institution” and its role is crucial in national security. The murmurs of a martial law are once again making rounds.

This side of the picture presents a state mired in its own internal fights with various institutions at each other’s throats. The same Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) which supported the cause of the restoration of the deposed judges is trying to rein in the Supreme Court by trimming the powers of the judicial commission which has an edge in the appointment of judges of the apex and high courts. Then there is Pakistan Army and the ISI which claim to be the uncontested savior of Pakistan. Though, India is no more number one enemy, and has been replaced by Taliban; however, it seems the security institutions are more occupied with the anti-Pakistan elements which in their perception abundantly populate media and civil society, two bastion of public opinion. It may be mentioned that not lately an Urdu feature film, Waar (War) was shot and released with the collaboration of the ISPR, public relations wing of the Army. Also, there is talk of an exclusive television channel for the use of Army to counter the Indian propaganda.

In this picture where do the politicians stand, whom the citizens bring into power? Pertinently this picture lacks the lines and shades of governance, and is blank so far as public provision of justice and basic social services is concerned. Hungry of energy, not only the entrepreneurship is desperate, ordinary life is disturbed. Electricity availability has somewhat improved under this government as compared to the previous one; but the core issues such as circular debt, a stifled market and state’s monopoly over the distribution of electricity are not going to be addressed soon. The scarce natural gas proves to be an apple of discord for which textile, fertilizer and other lobbies vie fiercely.

The present forecasted growth rate is lurking in the range of 3 to 4 %; but IMF puts it at 3.1 %. The average rate of inflation is hovering between 8.5 and 9.5 %. And the budget deficit for the current fiscal year is in the range of 6 to 7 %. As for the infrastructural priorities, the present government is hitting the wrong notes, and its urban sensibility is questionable; the cities are getting huge amounts of money being spent on un-needed projects, such as flyovers in Lahore. The roads in cities and their peripheries and especially in rural areas are in quite bad shape, or there is none at all. Potable water is a dream for most of the people. Healthcare is almost non-existent or do not match the number of patients it targets.

Another area of the picture represents the dismal state of the public transport, which has over the years deteriorated steeply. Not only can be seen crowds of commuters waiting at the bus-stops and buses tightly packed, there are as many traffic jams which consume sufficient number of hours of their life daily. To this must be added the statistics of road accidents killing countless citizens for which ultimate responsibility rests with the government, since rules and laws regulating driving license and traffic on the roads, though written in the books, are never implemented. According to Rescue 1122 service, just within one day 572 accidents were reported from 36 districts of Punjab last year. In this regard, the death statistics is too horrible to see: this April 20, in Sukkur district a collision between a bus carrying about 60 passengers and a trailer took 42 lives, and out of 27 dead 14 were children and 13 women, with 17 others injured.

Additionally, there is terror of the Taliban and other violent groups which on their own contribute to the disfiguration of the state of Pakistan. The government’s recent talks with the Thereek-e-Taliban brought a relief to the ordinary citizens; the frequency of the suicide blasts and indiscriminate killings saw a substantial reduction. But the issue stands unresolved and there is a long war ahead to fight the brunt of which is for the ordinary citizens to bear.

Constitutionally a civilian political government is in driving seat which came to power last year after the first elected civilian set-up completed its five-year stint. However, it appears that the state of Pakistan is not being run by the civil rulers; other encroachers of their constitutional powers, such as security institutions and agencies, are obstructing the way they may want to govern and it is with them that the citizens pin hopes. But the state of Pakistan is entangled in its own fights and this cancer is eating up the resources which may otherwise be utilized to provide the ordinary citizens with protection of life and property, justice and basic social services. That’s the story of the last 67 years. The story is going to be retold if the politicians do not take heart to challenge the actors be they state, i.e. security establishment, or non-state, i.e. Taliban and other violent groups. And if the ruling politicians let the security establishment do what it like, and do not subdue it to play its constitutional duty, they will once again betray the millions of teeming citizens who are living a hopeless life in Pakistan.

Note: This article was completed on April 26, and was originally posted in June, 2014.

In Pakistan, the state is the problem

In Pakistan, the state is the problem!

See these pictures:

Women protest Muridke police torture of Razia Bibi, who was on full-term, that caused a still-birth

People of Manga Mandi demonstrate against police

[The News, April 9, 2014]

Note: This was originally posted in April 2014.

Senators or free-riders

Here is what the upper house of the Pakistani parliament is interested in:

Greener pastures: Senators seek equal share in foreign trips

 
[The Express Tribune, April 14, 2014]

Note: This was originally posted on April 14, 2014.

My new book, "Pakistan's Democratic Impasse: Analysis and the Way Forward" published / released

Here is the media release:

New book - “Pakistan’s Democratic Impasse” published

The book indicts politicians as the main culprit for failing the state of Pakistan

The book falsifies the myth of blaming the Pakistan Army for the ills Pakistanis facing

Author argues constitution authorizes politicians to rule, not the Army 

 Lahore April 8, 2014: Alternate Solutions Institute released today Dr. Khalil Ahmad's new book, Pakistan’s Democratic Impasse – Analysis and the Way Forward. Already this in 2012 and this February, he has published three books, "Pakistan Mein Riyasti Ashrafiya Ka Urooj" (The Rise of State Aristocracy in Pakistan, February 2012), “Siyasi Partian Ya Siyasi Bandobast: Pakistani Siyasat Ke Pech-o-Khum Ka Falsafiyani Muhakma” (Political Parties Or Political Arrangements: A Philosophical Critique of the Intricacies of Pakistani Politics, July 2012), and, Pakistani Kashakash: Tehleel-O-Tadeel aur Aagay Barhany ka Rasta (Pakistani Armageddon: Analysis, Resolution and the Way Forward, February 2014).

The book elaborates the above-stated position which the author took in three of his books and in a number of articles already published in newspapers and on his blog (www.NotesFromPakistan.blogspot.com). He holds that after so many stumbles through the 65 years of its existence, Pakistan has finally come to be: a government of the criminals, by the criminals, for the criminals. He singles out politicians as the main and the lone culprit not only for failing the citizens of Pakistan, but betraying their trust also.

The author says his book derives its rationale and insight from a reading of the constitution of Pakistan which considers the fundamental rights and the articles protecting these rights and freedoms as the core value of the constitution. His book looks beyond those articles and books, or that specific approach, which analyzes the democratic failure of Pakistan in a historical, sociological, economic, or political perspective only or in a way combining them all, and tries to see the history, sociology, economics and politics of Pakistan with an eye focused on the scheme of things the constitution of the country put in place to run the state of Pakistan.

Also, the author has tried to see the past, present and future role of politicians or political parties and Pakistan Army through the lens of the constitution, and thus his standpoint which is unprecedented and goes against the prevailing wisdom of putting the responsibility for the failure democratizing the society of Pakistan wholly and solely on the shoulders of Pakistan Army, may seem pleading the innocence of those Generals who imposed Martial Laws and disfigured the constitution; however, this book in addition to castigating the anti-constitutional acts of the Generals of the Pakistan Army holds that it is the inherent inability of the political civilian governments which did not prosecute and punish them, and in that sense vehemently censures that approach of absolving the politicians totally as unconstitutional and derisive to the constitutional manner of bringing order in a society.

The author concludes that his book not only sees bits of an already delayed indictment of the Pakistani politicians, but an opportunity also to conduct, on the basis of the same book, a thorough political audit of the performance of the political leaders and the political parties as the sole culprit who misled the political evolution of Pakistan, and constantly breached the trust of the citizens of Pakistan, as a result of which people of Pakistan were deadlocked into an impasse with no way out or forward to live their life as they wish but to live in servitude to the politicians.

In addition to suggesting ways to overcome this impasse, the author says that by putting all the burden of failures on politicians, constitutionalism and civilian supremacy in Pakistan may be strengthened, and this in due course will bring rule of law as an established norm in the country, and will bring a political culture never ready to tolerate any unconstitutional acts of any actors and flouters of the law of the land, and thus will ultimately help prepare ground not only for a decriminalized democratic polity but for democratic culture and values also to take root and flourish, overcoming the Pakistan’s chronic democratic impasse.

The author of the book, Dr. Khalil Ahmad, has been teaching Philosophy, and presently is mainly devoted to Political Philosophy. He is one of the founders of the Alternate Solutions Institute, a think tank dedicated to the strengthening of fundamental rights and rule of law in Pakistan. His most important works are "Pakistan Mein Riyasti Ashrafiya Ka Urooj" (The Rise of State Aristocracy in Pakistan), and "Charter of Liberty.”

http://asinstitute.org/node/426

Note: This was originally posted in April 2014.