Politics

What is politics about? Is it just a squabble between political parties and politicians? Is it only a tussle between different institutions of the state for power? Is it only the conflict between the fascists and pro-democracy liberal forces? Is everything a manifestation of class struggle?

 

The answer in a developing society like Pakistan would be: It is all of the above. But more importantly and urgently the prime objective of all politics should be to fight poverty and growing inequality. From a common man’s perspective political democracy struggle should be primarily focused on achieving economic democracy. Economic growth and equitable distribution of its fruits should be on the top of the agenda of political parties.

 

So far the political parties’ focus is more on political issues like the presidential election, pressurizing him to part ways with his real constituency and future power alliances. Real issues of the people like poverty alleviation, education, health, unemployment, the challenges and opportunities of globalisation are not given serious thought by the political parties. For the poor it’s sympathy and promises only.  The poverty of discussion on poverty in the political circles is pathetic.

 

Most of the leaders in the opposition criticise the government for its short-comings in these areas, but fail to offer any alternate plan. Even the majority of the government party leaders have little to say on this issue except claiming that the economy has turned around and the country is managing a handsome growth rate.

 

Leading political parties have never cared to establish research and policy cells in their respective parties. Those who have such resource-strapped cells, their leadership do not pay much attention to their recommendations.

 

There is also no tradition in this country to have a shadow cabinet, which keeps some senior leaders in the opposition focused on the subject assigned to them. Once when I raised this issue with a senior leader of PPP, he said that creation of a shadow cabinet would alienate many and may also result in defection of many party leaders. The message was loud and clear that many leaders stay with the party to become a minister and not because of its policies.

 

Occasionally, one hears a political leader on TV saying they will eliminate poverty and the government claim that poverty rate has dropped by almost 10 percent is false. Even if the World Bank figures are accepted poverty rate has dropped by 5 percent in the last 7 years, which means eight million people have climbed out of the poverty quagmire.

 

To my journalist friends I would request to question the political leaders on what would be their party’s strategy and tactics to step up poverty alleviation process. Don’t let them beat around the bush, pin them down to give the people of Pakistan detailed strategy and tactics on the issues of health, education, unemployment, sustaining economic growth, etc. Viewer and readers have had enough of debates and statements of these leaders on esoteric political and constitutional issues. They would also prefer to hear from the political leaders how their party will solve these fundamental problems. Not just sloganeering.

 

Let’s take some of the chronic issues:

(a)           Everybody knows that there is direct linkage between education and poverty alleviation. While according to the government figures 92 per cent children enroll in public and private schools, almost 40 percent drop out before completing primary education. The enrollment at secondary level drops drastically to 44 per cent only. The reasons for a high drop-out rate given by the educationists are lack of teachers, poor infrastructure conditions, low priority given to female literacy and distances to school. Add to this harsh teaching methodology used by untrained teaching staff at the government schools.

(b)            Unemployment and underemployment is another issue which no political party talks about. They have no plan to establish linkages between the education system, career counseling and the employment market.

(c)            Nobody has ever discussed the push factors which are forcing rural population to migrate to the cities resulting in unemployment and serious urban infrastructure problems.

(d)            They have never given a serious thought on how to integrate madrassa students in the economic main stream.

(e)            (e) We have never heard any senior political leader telling people that how they plan to bring down the infant mortality rate down from 83 per 1000 live births and 450 maternal deaths on every 100,000 live births. So on and so forth.

 

Interestingly, while the Ministry of Finance has extensively discussed the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper II with the government officials and some civil society organisations, the political parties have completely ignored this discussion. Even the ruling party PML (Q) leaders have not expressed their views on this document, although frankly speaking these documents should be used as a working paper to write manifestoes by the political parties. All the data and documents are available on the website of the Ministry of Finance, but I doubt any political leader has cared to download this for working out their own strategy or a critique.

 

The other view of my journalist friends could be that issues related to restoration of real democracy and army’s exit from politics are important at present and ultimately affect the welfare of the common man. It’s true. Amartya Sen’s thesis says freedom (democracy) is interlinked with the development but foremost priority of this struggle should be economic welfare of the dispossessed.

 

Media can play an important role in pushing the politicians to start thinking and committing on such basic welfare issues. Let’s talk about concrete workable poverty alleviation plans now. Remember politics is noble, if it is done for the people and not for seizing power for the sake of power alone. So no rhetoric please! (ayazbabar@gmail.com)

 

 

Zayd

My grandson welcome to Pakistan. I am sorry Zayd my generation has failed to give you a society that it could have been and has the potential to be.

 

Last Wednesday when you were born, there must have been birth of roughly another 8700 babies in the country. And approximately 2610 of these were born to the families who survive below the subsistence level.

 

You may be the one of the privileged babies who were born with best of healthcare and in cozy air-conditioned environment. But alas a great majority of the babies are born in this country in unhygienic home environment, without the help of qualified medical assistance. Still many mothers die while giving birth to their child because of inadequate health facilities.

 

You are born to an educated family and hopefully would have an access to good education. But unfortunately almost every second person in this country is left uneducated. Literacy is improving but at a snail pace. Living conditions of the poor are getting better but trickle by trickle.

 

You are born in the family where humanism rules over all kinds of prejudices. But sadly poverty, inequality and extremism is breeding intolerance in our society day in day out. The dispossessed are brainwashed to blow them up taking lives of many innocents in the hope of heavenly pleasures.

 

A few months after your father Adarsh was born in 1978, I was told by Alan Chalkley at a workshop on population planning that to know in how much time Pakistan’s population would double just divide 70 by the rate of growth. I did it immediately and found out that there would be another Pakistan to feed in 23 years time. I dreaded this population explosion as I could see that the society would burst at seams by the time your father would come in practical life. As population growth rate slowed down in this period the moment of commotion was delayed. Still it came, and is here now.

 

But don’t you worry my child there are some silver linings on the horizon also. At the present rate the population would double when you will be 35. The likelihood is you will even older as the population rate is bound to slow down further.

 

When you will grow up and read this you might think your Dada was a compulsive optimist. But I have not lost hope for my country. I still feel that the next 20 years would change Pakistan for better. Yes, in near future, when you will be still too young to understand a lot is going wrong. There will be noisy political tussle, rise in inequality, backlash from the obscurantists who are resisting the inevitable globalisation of culture and thought, more terrorist outbursts and crumbling law and order.

 

But there are positive developments also. Pakistan has started harvesting the demographic dividend. The working age population has out-numbered the dependents. You will grow up to enter in practical life say around 2032-03. The whole world opportunities will be open to you and your generation, thanks to globalisation. World would be in advanced knowledge age. Even if the government here is slow in delivering, the young working age population would lead the country to a prosperous and democratic future.

 

But as you grow up remember the less fortunate. Remember we have to build a Pakistan where love, tolerance and economic democracy flourishes. Remember that your great grandparents downward the family traditions we have followed are:

Ø     That we have to be good human being first and last;

Ø     That we have to look down and feel the pain of the dispossessed;

Ø     That we hold no prejudices on the basis of religion, caste, creed, sex and ethnicity;

Ø     That skepticism leads to inquiry and search of truth;

Ø     That knowledge is the only asset that cannot be robbed from you and there is never enough of it;

Ø     That honesty and positive attitude towards life always pays back;

Ø     And that it’s more important to value these values than loose them in desperate pursuit of wealth.

 

I hope one day you will read it my child and take time out to think over the only meaningful inheritance, I have for you. (ayazbabar@gmail.com)

American pressure

There is hardly a day when the US government does not try pressurizing President Musharraf, overtly and covertly, to do more in the war against terrorism. With friends like these he does not need enemies. They want quick results, which with all their so-called might, they have failed to achieve in Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

Instead of being helpful the Americans are arm twisting Pakistan. This short-sighted strategy is making present regimes struggle to over-power the terrorism and extremism weaker. Why? One, it creates a perception at home that Pakistan is fighting this war only to please Bush and his allies. Two, by implication it means that otherwise Pakistan has no danger from this self-created and nourished Frankenstein. Three, it makes anti-American religious extremists look like the vanguard of anti-imperialist struggle. And four, it gives the false impression that if we had refused to be a part of the war against terrorism, it would have not affected us and life would have been much easier.

 

Both US administration and our government are responsible for these misperceptions. The US because their bullying irks the nationalist cord of Pakistanis. President Musharraf, because when all this started after 9/11, he candidly said that this policy was adopted to save the country from the American wrath.  This may have been his honest view at that time, but it did not give the right message to the people. It gave an opportunity to the extremists and the anti-American people in Pakistan to play on people’s nationalism and pride. The position taken by the government was an outcome of its longstanding policy. They have nurtured extremist religious forces and terrorists since 1948. Now when this policy had to be dropped the establishment did it half heartedly only under duress and not confessing that they were wrong. They have failed to recognize the strength of saying: Sorry.

 

No country can afford to encourage religious extremism or terrorism under the garb of freedom fighters. No sensible country (am I asking for too much?) allows organised armed groups other than its law enforcing agencies and armed forces. But we did that. It is an open knowledge that the Jihadi groups were allowed to train and arm themselves. Now the same guns have been turned on Pakistanis.

 

Another failure of the government was that when they changed the policy they did not draw a proper communication plan to reach the people to explain that this adventurism was damaging for the country. The country needs to control extremism for economic development which would lead to poverty reduction. Their slogan should be ‘fight against religious extremism and terrorism to fight poverty.’ And that this war is to set the country on the path of progress.

 

Now that this conflict between religious extremism and democratic values has entered in a decisive phase in Pakistan, the obscurantists can only be countered by a real democratic dispensation. The present dispensation is either not fully convinced with that the post 9/11 policy is right, or they lack courage to stand up against the extremists. President Musharraf has been trying to lead this U-turn all alone. This is was very much evident from the weak support provided to him by his political allies in the Lal Masjid saga. The only significant support he received on this issue came from Ms. Bhutto.

 

The clergy has an advantage to reach the people five times a day everyday. They have at their disposal loudspeakers at every corner, may that be a city or a village. Most of these communication facilities have drifted in the hands of extremist clergy. 

 

On the other hand the official political leadership is mostly afraid to take side in this ideological tussle. Mobilizing public opinion at the union council level is required.  Those in the government are apologists of the madrassa forces and have repeatedly said that madaris are playing a positive role. They have to understand that the country does not need that many madaris producing one maulvi for every 300 persons every year. For madaris graduates religion is a source of earning as they are not fit to adjust in other professions. The Jihadi organisation prey in these nurseries for recruiting terrorists.

 

If Americans say we should fight terrorism and religious extremist we should not walk away from this just cause. It is and should be the cause of all those who believe in democracy and a tolerant society. The American administration’s interest in this can be short-lived.  They were the ones sowing Islamic Jihad in Afghanistan and taking pride in creating “technical Islamic guerillas.” 

 

It’s time to destroy this bitter harvest, or else it would be too late. We owe it to our younger generation. To save the kids of the have nots who go to such institutions the government should invest heavily in education with free boarding, clothing and meal facilities. The government and liberal political parties have to work together for changing the social, economic and political environment to pull out the country from the present quagmire. We need a wholesome grand plan. That is the only way to save our younger generation. Otherwise the fate of Beirut awaits us. (ayazbabar@gmail.com)

 

 

Munich

Being a Pakistani is difficult – whether you live in the country or you live abroad. Given our chequered political, economic and social history; it has always been difficult for Pakistanis living in the country either by choice or because of lack of option to migrate. The trouble is that there are far too many dark squares in the check and we seem to be walking from one to another.

 

Today I would like to first talk about how embarrassed as a Pakistani I felt over the Lal Masjid dark patch on our image abroad. Unfortunately, I was in Hanoi when May 12 carnage happened in the most industrialized city of Pakistan and I had to face the burst of questions from the people I met there. And once again I was in Munich last week when the inevitable bloody drop scene of Lal Masjid was played in the otherwise quite capital of Pakistan. Ironically, it was code named ‘Operation silence’ though its grenades’ bang and rattling guns were heard across the globe on 24/7 television channels. Loss of human life in the Lal Masjid operation is sad, but the onus lies on an extremist clergy and poor intelligence by omission or commission.

 

Again it was embarrassing for me to explain to the friends and people I came in contact in Munich that majority of Pakistanis are peace loving and moderate people. My defence was that the very fact the government has moved in cautiously after allowing around six month negotiations with the fanatic Ghazi brothers shows that we are not trigger happy and we do care for human life.

 

But to the questions why such a build up was allowed in Islamabad — the so-called high security zone — I had no answer for the foreign friends. I could have attempted to give my views on this but that wouldn’t have done any good to the country’s image. A poor attempt to evade the question was better, as most intelligent people have a fairly good understanding of the collusion of Pakistani establishment with the extremists. Their main source of information is of-course the media. It is hard for me and the people to believe that our ace intelligence agencies failed to detect arms ammunition and Islamic militants build up under their nose. Will some heads roll on this crucial intelligence failure in Islamabad? Will some lessons be learnt by our establishment? Most probably not. As I have mentioned in my other columns on this subject, the sympathy for the Islamic militants is quite deep rooted in the establishment.

 

When I traveled out of the country the local media was by and large supporting the government delayed action. But now I heard Geo’s Hamid Mir on CNN saying that media is turning against President Musharraf for not giving a chance to negotiated settlement. He mentioned how Ghazi Rashid used the media skillfully to convey that the issue can be settled by detaining him in a rest house and not arresting him. What about his goons who were wanted in many other terrorism cases? And then Dr. Akbar Ahmed came on CNN saying that public opinion would turn against Musharraf for attacking the mosque, which is considered sacred by the Muslims. Partly true. He forgot that military action was taken against those who took over a portion of Khana-e-Kaaba in Makkah and the Muslims of the world accepted it. In Pakistan a number of mosques have been attacked in the sectarian frenzy and no heaven fell.

 

It is true that a military’s interference in politics is one of the major causes of all the problems. It is also true that in Pakistan militant Islam was promoted by the establishment from the very beginning as a tool of India-centric policy. It is also true that Musharraf of pre 9/11 subscribed to the Jihadi outlook. Having said that I would say we should also see that Pakistan army policy makers like most of the modern organisations are pragmatic. They know that the days of Jihadi adventure are over. Islamic Jihad was tolerated by the world powers till it was needed in the cold war era. It is now a global threat to the West. To their way of living. To their democratic and modern values. To their economy. But the fact of the matter is that whether you want it or not Jihadists outfits have to be closed. What we are witnessing in the Islamic world is the resistance among the political and militant Islamic forces. They have vested economic interest in keeping the Jihadi business going, not to speak of lower cadre commitment with their cause. But all said and done it is their last battle cry. I must add here hurriedly that winding up of this business may take at least a decade. Be prepared for the echo.

 

So in this situation Pakistan’s democratic forces, including the media should not get confused on how to deal with the extremists. Pressing President General Musharraf to withdraw military from country’s politics and restore full-fledge democracy is a just call. But this does not mean that if at all he does something right we should jump to the other side. Problem with most democracy loving Pakistanis is that we do not take position on policies; we take position for and against a person or an institution.  It seems that Chairman Mao’s frivolous saying — Support what the enemy opposes and oppose what the enemy supports — still rules our politics. The good sign is that Ms. Bhutto has taken a right stand on this Lal Masjid episode. The country needs mature opinion makers whether they are in politics, media or civil society. Remember real democracy and progressive view of life has been always our cause. We have struggled for it for the last 60 years. Anybody who wants to join this struggle now for reasons of pragmatism or commitment (even temporarily) is welcome. President is not excluded. (ayazbabar@gmail.com)

Minister with courage

At least one minister, of the wagon load this government is burdened with, has shown the courage to resign from her post to show her resentment on the cowardice of the majority of her colleagues.

 

Neelofar Bakhtiar not only had the courage to go for paragliding but also to stand up to the Islamist vigilantes of the Lal Masjid. She has decided to challenge their right to issue Fatwa against her in the court and not a single colleague came forward to second her. The self-styled vigilantes were quick to issue a Fatwa against her just because she hugged another veteran paraglide after landing safely. She had taken this jump to raise funds for a good cause. What she did was her personal choice and did not hurt anybody. No law in the country says that she cannot hug anybody.

 

Some months back a fanatic, who was let loose, in spite of two murders on his hands, shot a Punjab government lady minister as according to him women should not be working with men. The problem with religious extremists is that they want to enforce their social and moral values on others

Extremist religious leader have been privileging religion in the country and trying to thrust Arab tribal values on the people of the Indus civilization. They fail to understand that Islam was spread successfully by the Sufis in the sub-continent because they were sensitive to the local culture. If this task would have been left in the hands of the Salafists only, perhaps we would have had small Muslim population here.

 

Most politicians are afraid of the religious extremist and have always avoided challenging them upfront. This consistent capitulation since the adoption of the objectives resolution in the early 50s and its inclusion in the constitution by General Zia-ul-Haq has encouraged bigotry in the country. Present government’s predicament is that it has many fundamentalist within its ranks. The Minister for Religious Affairs says that knighting Rushdie justifies suicide bombers. Punjab Assembly speakers Sahi says at the assembly’s floor that he will kill Rushdie if the controversial writer ever crossed his path. Sindh Chief Minister Arbab Rahim says that people were crushed by the billboard in Karachi storm because God was angry on the display of vulgar pictures of women models. Chaudhry Shujaat, according to Lal Masjid representatives was convinced that their cause was just.

 

The extremists are actually doing a disservice to the religion. Take Rushdie’s affair first. It would have been better and more impressive if the Muslim scholars had contested him on an intellectual front. They have full right to disagree with him but have no justification to talk about taking his life. It is an accepted fact that violence is a weapon used by those who fail in a rational debate.

 

The argument given by all fundamentalists, no matter which religion they belong to, is that what is pronounced divine by them cannot be argued or discussed. Hence all the intolerance shown by them whether it is issues of interpretation of religion or the values which they think are ordained by the divine power are sacred. Such people argue that when it is an accepted democratic norm in modern polity that no race should be criticised, then why anybody should be allowed to question anything which is religious? The issue is that one cannot choose a race as he/she is born in it, but one can choose a philosophy, mythology, sect or a religion. Isn’t that’s the case with those who convert to Islam? Forget the double standards in this regard that a born Muslim is not allowed to convert to any other religion or philosophy. What these obscurantist are saying is that a religious person is not making a conscious choice but he/she follows the path blindly per force of their birth in a particular family.

 

Lastly, I would like to ask Sindh Chief Minister that if the killer hoardings fell because of the wrath of the God, then they should have fallen on those who sponsored and made these hoardings and not on poor people who were passers by. Is the CM sure that the victims were not as good Muslims as he is if not more? What a sad joke we have become!!

The writer is a freelance columnist. (ayazbabar@gmail.com)

Sialkot

Want to run away from the tension of highly politically charged cities like Karachi, Lahore and Islamabad, visit Pakistan’s exports and small & medium industry city — Sialkot. Visit to this ancient city is always redeeming. Cynicism has no place here.

 

Although Sialkot’s history dates back to some 5000 years, unfortunately not many traces are left except the name of Raja Sul in Mahabharata. The city was also known as Sakaladvipa – island of Sakala — in the Vedic period, as it is situated between the river Chenab and Ravi.

 

But today it is known more as the city that produces almost 70 per cent of the world’s hand-stitched footballs, a range of other sports goods and sports wear, surgical instruments, cutlery and leather accessories for the motorbikes. Total exports from this city, which has a population of less than 700000, is over US$ one billion. Over a thousand exporters of all sizes — big, medium and small — are actively and single-mindedly busy in production and competing at the global market. Sialkotis have a strong determination to meet the challenges of globalisation, in spite of many handicaps. They believe in ‘business first.” That is what gives you the feeling that there is life beyond the judicial crisis, international pressures, conflicts on the borders and political impasse in the country. These issues are important for the country, but they do not fog the minds of Sialkotis as they do of the people in the big cities.

 

When I tried to probe the Sialkotis on these issues during my visit last week, their replies were short and there was little eagerness to carry the topic further. Yes, all they want to talk about is the challenges ahead for the exports industry of Sialkot. “Not a single day’s strike is observed by the business in this city,” says Pervaiz Iqbal Soni, President Hosiery Manufacturers Association (Sialkot Chapter). “People do take out the procession but without disturbing the business, as for Sialkotis meeting buyers deadline is more important than any other thing,” he added proudly.

 

So let’s go back to their favourite topic – business. According to Tahir Kapur, former President of Sialkot Chamber of Commerce & Industry (SCCI) two biggest threats to the over 100 years old sports goods industry are: introduction of machine stitched footballs in the international market and increased pressure from buyers and global agencies regarding social compliance – elimination of child labour, environment laws implementation, workers health coverage, etc. The latter threat is also valid for the surgical industry.

 

He feels that while the big players would be able to adapt to the changing technological needs of the market, the majority of the small and medium football exporters are expected to be wiped out. All leading exporters agree that the big players will have to invest in new technology to produce machine-stitched footballs and that the medium and small players would not be able to afford it.

 

But the President of Sports Goods Manufacturers and Exporters Association, Professor Safdar Sandal and the association guru Mehboob Sheikh feel that hand stitched footballs market will not eliminate completely. “We pay premium for other handmade items because of their quality; similarly the hand stitched footballs will fetch better prices and their demand will stay.” This doesn’t mean that they want to rule out the machine stitched footballs threat.

 

One outstanding quality of Sialkoti entrepreneurs is that they don’t wait for the rescue and dole from Islamabad. They are usually the first one to put their money in the kitty to solve their problems and then ask the government to chip in. They have done so by building the country’s first private sector managed dry port, then chipping in for the construction of major roads. And the biggest contribution was to build the first private sector airport, which is almost ready.

 

To meet the machine stitched footballs threat to small exporters who cannot have their own plants, Sialkot Chamber President Abdul Waheed Sandal says they have decided to set up Sialkot Industry Trust This trust will establish a factory for machine stitched footballs. This project would be funded by100 football exporters by chipping in Rs 100,000 each and with substantial support from the government. The exporters would be able to place their orders with this factory and meet the machine stitched football demand of their buyers.

 

WTO Social compliance regulations are a problem for all the export-based industries in Pakistan. The industry view is that while the Western importers push these conditions, they are not prepared to give a decent price. Social compliance has a cost which cuts into exporters profits and when it is passed through to the buyers it makes our products uncompetitive.

 

The good side of these regulations is that the employers are forced to eliminate child labour and give better deals to their labour. As these regulations are common for all the nations, they should add to the cost of our competition also. Globalisation challenge is that all businesses have to remain agile, innovative, cost conscious and competitive. Our businessmen do suffer from some unfair hidden subsidies enjoyed by the Chinese. This is where our government should contribute by bringing the cost of doing business down in Pakistan.

 

One of the major problems faced by the Sialkot industries is the shortage of skilled labour. The elimination of child labour process has also closed the door for skill development of the workers. The century old skill development system was that on job training was given by the parents and seniors to young apprentices. Now the apprenticeship institution has been closed by the international regulations without providing an alternate training system.

 

Sialkot business leaders say what while Glove Manufacturers have established a small training school for women where they are taught cutting and stitching, there are no such facilities in other trades. Surgical instrument industry is now planning to set up a Surgical Technology Institute with government assistance which will train about 250 students.

 

All this is good but I think National Vocational Technical Education Commission (NAVTEC) Chairman Altaf Saleem should look into this matter and set up training centers in trades needed by the Sialkot industry. These institutes should be clubbed with the secondary schools so that by the time a student has done his Matric he/she has also a technical skill required by the industry. Educated workers will also improve the quality of production and make implementation of social compliance easier. It would also help in providing an alternate to ages old child labour practice.

 

In spite of these measures taken by the industry, it seems that the inevitable time has come for the Sialkot sports goods and surgical industry to go through mergers, acquisitions and consolidation phase. It is sad as it may lead to the natural death of many small players, but such are the ironies of capitalist economy and globalization. Economic evolution has the same course of natural selection as that of human beings. (ayazbabar@gmail.com)

Press Freedom

US Judge Gurfein in a decision rejecting government efforts to bar publication of the Pentagon Papers, said that we have “a cantankerous press, an obstinate press, ubiquitous press,” and that these tribunes of the people “must be suffered by those in authority in order to preserve the even greater values of freedom of expression and the right of the people to know.”

 

Suffering freedom of press when it goes against one’s own interest is a democratic virtue. Unfortunately it is hard to find in our culture. As a result of the long drawn struggle for freedom of press in this country, which has been heroically led by the working journalists, the print media’s independence is now more and less tolerated by the establishment. But it seems that they have yet to learn to live with the more powerful cousin – the independent electronic media.

 

Once again the journalists of Pakistan are on the streets to defend the hard earned freedom of media. The latest onslaught on the electronic media was the promulgation of an Ordinance on last Monday by the President. It injected a number of amendments in the PEMRA law, although the National Assembly was due to meet on Wednesday, irrespective of the democratic norm that an ordinance is only issued by a president on the recommendation of the prime minister when the national assemblies are not in session and the matter is urgent. Interestingly in this case there was no cabinet meeting and no recommendation from the prime minister who is supposed to be the chief executive. (Perhaps, the only time the poor President ‘was obligated’ to follow the Prime Minister’s bidding in the last few years was when he fulfilled his constitutional duty of rubber-stamping and posting CJP’s reference).

 

Let’s see why the government is so upset with the electronic media lately in Pakistan. The present government takes well-deserved pride in the fact that they opened up the electronic media to the private sector, which was a sacred area in the past. Soon after the Kargil adventure the government started feeling that they had lost on both the diplomatic and the propaganda front. I heard many high level government officials and ministers lamenting this fact. It was felt that we should also have private channels in Pakistan like India. The first private channel was launched with the backing of the Shaheen Foundation. Availability of modern satellite technology allowed this channel to uplink from Hong Kong, thus bypassing the government’s antiquated regulation and inertia. All curbs on restricting the private sector from entering the television business were thus beaten by the new technology.

 

The government then had to follow and bring in the law on which there were some initial discussions in Ms. Bhutto’s time.  To be fair it can be said that the present government did accept the need and technology dictation gracefully and allowed over 40 private channels. They proudly took this credit and enjoyed basking in the spotlights of many cameras.

 

They also digested TV channels news and views against the establishment but not without occasional interference and behind the camera arm-twisting. This tolerance was backed by the confidence of the government in its strength and the fact that there was minimum political movement out on the streets. But as the government started feeling weaker and isolated after the 3/9 hara-kiri and the ‘black coat movement’ gathered strength, opposition was forced out from drawing rooms to the street, and the television coverage started becoming unpalatable for the top bosses.

 

It is a generally accepted fact that weaker and shaky governments fear the press freedom. Pakistan is no different. This attitude is explained by Noam Chomsky in his paper Democracy and the Media: “the criticism of the media for their adversarial stance can only be understood as a demand that the media should not reflect the range of debate over tactical questions among dominant elites, but should serve only those segments that happen to manage the state at a particular moment, and should do so with proper enthusiasm about the causes – noble by definition – in which state power is engaged.”

 

The government’s media managers should know that in this day and age curbs on press freedom are meaningless as technological development in the last three decades have broken all barriers and bunkers the establishment likes to build. Even the opposition leaders, who spoke in favour of media and against the government for obvious reasons, were off the mark and self-contradictory.  At least two top PPP leaders said that while the government is putting curbs on the national TV channels, they have allowed “vulgarity’ and Indian channels. What vulgarity are they talking about, joining the MMA chorus? And why Indian channels should not be allowed if people want to see them? Please stop being patriarchal!

 

The centrality of individual freedom and ‘the reach of individual freedom’ for democracy must be acknowledged by the champions of democracy, whether in the government or in the opposition. Remember what Noble laureate Amartya Sen said: “Development consists of the removal of various types of unfreedoms (emphasis mine) that leave people with little choice and little opportunity of exercising their reasoned agency. The removal of unfreedoms … is constitutive of development.” (ayazbabar@gmail.com)

 

Same Sex Marriages

There is no dearth of topics for discussion in Pakistan. Look at the line up of current favourite issues: power struggle between the judiciary and executive; political tussle between the opposition — which wants a fair interim government for holding elections — and the government; battle for political and cultural space between religious obscurantist and liberals; partial siege of the capital by “Masjid-e-Qabza Group;” Karachi killings; Talibanisation in the North; and bomb blasts in Balochistan in the West. As if all this was not enough a social issue of same sex marriage has been added to the list.

 

While much has been written on the political issues, let’s look at the same sex marriage issue which has been brought out of the closet by Shumail & Shazina case filed by her vengeful father. Just because he could not tolerate his daughter’s independent decision he brought the whole story in the glaring light of the media. So we cannot say that the couple was making a brave gay statement. It seems they arranged to get married in naivety, not realizing that this was not allowed under Pakistani law, religion and culture. Unwittingly they have exposed the hypocrisy of our society.

 

It would have been extremely difficult for the vengeful father to challenge if they had not declared their ‘marriage.’  In this country while the self-styled guardians of the society do not allow an unmarried man and woman to live together, they have usually no problems in accepting the people of same sex living with each other. There are so many such couples in the country, the only difference is one doesn’t know about their sexual relations, if there are any. Even if people suspect homosexuality, they are usually decent enough not to mention it. In fact in a society like ours when it comes to sexual relations, the reaction is to exhibitionism. What you do in the confines of your bedroom is usually not challenged by the society.

 

But that’s not all we know that many people are bi-sexual in segregated societies like ours. They have homosexual relations till they get married. Some regions of Pakistan are well known for this although they follow religious rituals more rigorously than most of Pakistanis from other regions. Nobody takes them to the court because such people are still in the closet fearing the society reprimand.

 

Or come to think of it two different set of moral values are existing in our society. It is different with the westernized elite where many people are out of the closet and have no bones about their sexual preferences. There are couples of well known personalities, who are living together as partners and it is no secret. The alter-ego show is one of the most watched talk show in Pakistan where even political personalities are guests. Then there is middle class which is conservative and sticks to the traditional moral and social values. Among the have nots though we hear a lot about honour killing when it comes to heterosexual relations, it is difficult to recall such a strong reaction in homosexuality cases. Then the question is why this dichotomy in our value system? Why we have two different Pakistans?

 

To understand this we have to refer back to sociology – the concept of moral ‘Zeitgeist.’ This German term means: the spirit of time; the characteristics of an age or generation. Sociologists have maintained that moral and social value change with time – with generations. They are not static, because social super structure is relative to the level of economic and technological development of a particular society.

 

You don’t need the time machine to see the strength of this observation. Slavery was not considered bad in the 19^th century, today it is abhorred. Women were not considered equal and had no voting rights in many societies (Switzerland gave it in 1976 and Kuwait accepted it only last year), but today any discrimination on the basis of sex is looked down upon. Having sexual relations with concubines or maids was accepted in many societies and scriptures, now it is sexual exploitation.

 

According to Old Testament when was brought to him with the charge that he was working on the Sabbath, ‘Moses ordered the man shall surely be put to death: the entire congregation shall stone him without the camp.’ Surely, the man was stoned to death for collecting firewood’s on the Sabbath day. But Jesus who grew up on the same doctrine said in a similar case: ‘The Sabbath was made for man, not man for Sabbath.’ In tribal FATA they stoned a couple to death last month and they considered it right, in industrialized urban Pakistan it was considered barbaric.

 

The section of society which is exposed and linked to individualistic capitalist economy in Pakistan is slowly and gradually changing its social and moral values without even realizing it. The younger the generation the faster is the change. Rural population which has been left behind in the race of development has different set of values. There are sections of society living in the present time changed by the globalisation, and then we have people living in pre-independence time zone. It all depends on how much the development and its fruits have reached you. Influence of religion is strong on our society, but it is equally challenged by the globalisation deluge. This is what I call two Pakistans. But hang there is another one which is in transition in the time machine is half way to the present.

 

Taking the realistic view of the moral and social values, it can thus be said that the honourable court has come too harshly on Shazina and Shumail just for speaking a lie. Off course it is perjury but their circumstances should have been given due weightage as justice has to be performed with mercy. (ayazbabar@gmail.com)

An uninspiring outlook

When the wanton violence was let loose on the bloody May 12, I was in Vietnam, with a group of European and Far Eastern businessmen, who were invited by the Messe Munchen, a German Trade Fair company. My son was relaying me a running commentary from Karachi on phone, at one stage he just kept the phone next to the TV and I could hear the charged voice of Talat Hussain of Aaj. That was the time when our Vietnamese host had taken us on a tour of Hanoi and we were walking to Ho Chi Minh’s mausoleum – something I always wanted to do. Listening to what was happening to the people of my city, my heart sank. Perhaps my worry was written large on my face, some friends asked what happened and I had to not only tell them the news but also the whole background. They were quite well-informed about our executive versus legal fraternity squabble. Pakistan was the topic of the day, but alas for wrong reasons.

 

A day earlier the Messe officials were telling us that they are planning to organise a major international infrastructure conference and exhibition in Hanoi, because the fast-growing economy needs investment in infrastructure. I was tempted to draw their attention to Pakistan, which I said is a bigger economy than Vietnam. But then after the disturbing news from back home I dropped the idea of pursuing it any further. Who would come to Karachi, when we are shooting our own people, while the Rangers, Police and whole establishment stood by and watched it, as if it was happening in Rwanda?

 

On returning home the first shock was that my older son and daughter, who returned to Pakistan after finishing their studies abroad and are working here, said Baba enough is enough our idealism was finally shattered on the bloody May 12, and we want to migrate to the West.

 

First few days’ people were just sharing the horrible stories. Now all the political parties are blaming each other for the violence, which has taken over 40 lives. The civil society, political parties, city elite, intelligentsia and government officials I have met in the last week are directly and indirectly convinced that the Sindh government led by MQM was responsible for the carnage. The MQM leadership is now at pain to prove that the PPP started the violence. But they have no answer to the deadly question: Who held the law enforcing agencies and city administration back?

It is here I think they cannot shrug the responsibility off. In the first place being a part of the government they should not have called their rally on the same day when the Chief Justice of Pakistan was invited to speak at the bar. They know what happens when the CJP goes anywhere these days thanks to the popularity thrust on him by the government. A question can be rightly raised that this was MQM’s fundamental democratic right. Right. It is everybody’s right, but rights have to be exercised with sagacity. Being the incumbent government, being the largest political party of the city and being the claimant that MQM is ‘the secular and democratic party’ the burden of magnanimity and grace were on their leadership. But undisputedly they fell short of this responsibility. MQM had earned a few marks with the Karachiites when they stood up on the women’s right issue a few months back. People felt that the party is showing signs of maturity. But all the credit was washed away with the bloodbath of 5/12.

 

Now feeling isolated and faced with a barrage of criticism it has taken up a PR exercise which has saved the city from a major strike at least for the time being. The problem with MQM, or to be honest with all major political parties in Pakistan is that democracy is a mean to ride and not amend.  This is the reason that MQM says “Karachi is their city and others should not try to show their strength”.  This is against the democratic tradition as everybody has a right to express, canvas and show their political will.  Trouble with our psyche is that monotheism is deeply indoctrinated. Democracy teaches us acceptance of plurality of ideas. Commitment to the principles of democracy teaches us respecting descent and believing in freedom of expression for the opponents of our point of view and beliefs.

 

Looking at the country’s domestic and geopolitical situation, one cannot be very optimistic about its foreseeable future. It may be doing better on the economic front but politically it seems to be drifting to more violence and chaos. Karachi’s future cannot be much different from the rest of the country. And it would not be long before the political uncertainties would start affecting the economy.

 

My friend Munir Malik, who was given an intimidating message with a volley of bullets that he should not lead the struggle for independence of judiciary, predicted in a TV interview that it’s going to rain for the better. Munir is an optimistic lawyer. But hasn’t the scripture said: “For he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.” And Lord Justice Bowen’s witty rhyme said:

The rain it raineth on the just,

And also on the unjust fella.

But chiefly on the just, because

The unjust has the just’s umbrella.

Need an Open Market of Ideas

“If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and one, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind”. (John Stuart Mill — On Liberty)

Utility of celebrating various days, whether local or international, to reaffirm commitment to their respective causes cannot be denied undoubtedly. But I have often wondered after hearing long speeches: What next? What is to be done? This point was raised by Justice ® Rashid Razvi last week at the discussion held at Karachi Press Club to celebrate World Press Freedom Day.

In 1993 United Nations General Assembly declared 3^rd May as the World Press Freedom Day to celebrate the anniversary of the Declaration of Windhoek. The document calls for free, independent, pluralistic media worldwide characterizing free press as essential to democracy and a fundamental human right.

The Declaration of Windhoek is a statement of free press principles as put together by newspaper journalists in Africa during a UNESCO seminar on “Promoting an Independent and Pluralistic African Press” in Windhoek, Namibia from 29 April to 3 May 1991. In addition to practical problems related to the lack of adequate facilities, equipment and training for journalists, the document also enumerates instances of intimidation, imprisonment, and censorship across Africa.

The issues of press freedom are quite similar across the globe. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights says: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers.”

So let’s now look at the law in Pakistan. Article19 of the constitution says “Freedom of speech, etc. – Every citizen shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression, and there shall be freedom of press, subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interest of the glory of Islam or integrity, security or defence of Pakistan or any part thereof, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation, or incitement of an offence.”

In a polity where we have a quasi-democracy, strong autocratic tendencies and foaming intolerance freedom of expression has been made subject to “reasonable restrictions’ imposed by law in number of areas. While some of the areas like defamation and contempt of court have related laws, many other areas are quite open-ended. And any government can stretch these clauses to gag the freedom of expression. For instance:

• Glory of Islam – you talk in favour of secularism or evolutionary theory it can be interpreted as an offence to glory of Islam. So all discussion has to be within the parameters of Islam.
• Integrity – even talking about confederation can be taken as an offence.
• Security or defence of Pakistan – this can be used against those who criticise the army, etc.
• Friendly relations with foreign States – Criticism of US and Bush are harming our relations with USA so you cannot write about it.
• Public order – By reporting about or showing protest rallies you are encouraging the protestors, so again you can be penalised for disturbing the public order and inciting people. So on and so forth.

 

The government can retort that this clause is a part of the 1973 constitution, which was unanimously approved by an elected Assembly. They can also rightly claim that no country gives unbridled freedom and freedom of expression has been put under reasonable restriction. The framers of 1973 had instinctively depended a lot on the Indian constitution. It seems that our Article 19 is also inspired by the same with an addition of “glory of Islam,”   of course.

 

Many of the open-ended restrictions have yet to be defined and interpreted by the judiciary. In recent cases also the government ministers have been invoking the support of these constitutional restrictions in their speeches and TV discussions.

 

The issue is that till the courts define and interpret these restrictions, the government can use them freely to gag the media. The media or an affected person can then go to the court for relief. The onus of proving, for instance, what national interest was compromised by a journalist or an individual would be on the government. However, till the decision the alleged journalist would suffer.

 

Many working journalists know that there are also other ways of intimidation with the government like using the police for twisting cable operators’ arms to drop a “hostile channel,” using advertisement whip, etc.

 

In this backdrop the journalists and media owners should brainstorm on the existing laws with the help of some constitutional experts and work on an amendment in the constitution to clip the unlimited powers of the government. PFUJ should take the lead and produce the bill for amendment with the support of the media owners, civil society and political parties.

 

Perhaps we can take some inspiration from the Danish law, which says, “Anyone is entitled to in print, writing, speech to publish his or her thoughts, yet under responsibility to the courts. Censorship and other preventive measures can never again be introduced.”

 

While most people have talked against the government curbs on media, one important aspect was not highlighted (at least not as much as it should have been) is the suppression of the freedom of expression by some political parties, ethnic and fascist groups and the crime mafia in the country. Four Pakistani journalists who were killed in Pakistan were by such groups.

 

In Pakistan affirmative action is needed to defend the freedom of expression of which freedom of media is just a part. It’s about time. The famous poet John Milton did this in 17^th century. His central argument was that the individual is capable of using reason and distinguishing right from wrong, good from bad. In order to be able to exercise this rational right, the individual must have unlimited access to the ideas of his fellow men in “a free and open encounter”. From Milton’s writings developed the concept of “the open market place of ideas.” (ayazbabar@gmail.com)