A Criminal Delay

Amir Zia
The News
Dec 22, 2014

There is also a tiny lobby comprising pseudo-liberals and office bearers and activists of foreign-funded rights groups, who actively advocate scrapping the death penalty without taking into account Pakistan’s objective realities. They quote examples of this country and that country which abolished the death sentence, but fail to mention that none of them face the kind of terrorism and law and order challenges as does Pakistan. 

Former president Asif Ali Zardari must have been greatly anguished to see the first two terror convicts being sent to the gallows on Dec 19. After all, he and his party went out of the way to place the controversial unconstitutional de-facto moratorium on the death penalty in 2008 to protect the lives of convicts found guilty of heinous crimes such as terrorism, mass killings, murders, child rape and abductions. 
Zardari’s soft corner for the jail inmates is perhaps understandable because he himself spent a long time in prison on charges of corruption before managing to get off the hook as a result of a deal with the former military-led government. 
Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, who continued with Zardari’s policy, also seemed to be reluctant to remove this dichotomy in the legal system, which on paper authorises the judiciary to hand down death sentences but the executive blocks its implementation. Sharif, for reasons best known to him, continued with the ban on the implementation of the death penalty till the harrowing Dec 16 carnage at the Army Public School in Peshawar left him with no option but to partially surrender to the long-pending demand of the security forces and the majority of Pakistanis to allow the hanging of at least terror convicts. 
Both the PPP and the PML-N failed to formally abolish the death sentence by amending the constitution for three reasons; first, public opinion overwhelmingly remains against any such move. Second, most top legal minds, including judges of the supreme and high courts, senior police officials and the armed forces firmly oppose any such change in the constitution. And third, because of fear of a backlash from the powerful religious forces, which see any such step against the tenets of Islam. Therefore, the past and present ruling parties just chose to live with this contradiction, which benefited the terrorists and the killers at the cost of victims and their families.
There is also a tiny lobby comprising pseudo-liberals and office bearers and activists of foreign-funded rights groups, who actively advocate scrapping the death penalty without taking into account Pakistan’s objective realities. They quote examples of this country and that country which abolished the death sentence, but fail to mention that none of them face the kind of terrorism and law and order challenges as does Pakistan. 
In none of these countries have nearly 60,000 people lost their lives in terrorism-related incidents since 2002. None of them have bands of religious extremists, politically sponsored terror groups and criminal mafias forcing their citizens to live virtually on a knife’s edge. They also do not take into account the soaring crime rate and incidents of lawlessness in this land of the pure, which calls for tough measures on a war-footing. They also seem to be oblivious of the wide gap between social and economic development, literacy rate and income between us and them.
But how can these pseudo-liberals and so-called rights advocates see and comprehend the stark reality of Pakistan? They see Pakistan through the rose- tinted glasses of their small bubble where they queue up for foreign visas to attend international conferences for free, eye fat consultancy contracts and jobs in various NGOs or are content with the clout they can have in the right quarters here and abroad to advocate the agenda handed down to them by donors.
Even after the Peshawar school attack, many of them are out to confuse the issue of death penalty with their ‘ifs’ and ‘buts’. In doing this they fail to mention that, despite its many flaws, Pakistan’s judicial system provides multiple opportunities to the accused and convicts to go for appeals at various stages of the trial. 
The weakness of our judicial and prosecution system is not that it convicts an innocent, but that it allows hardened criminals and terrorists get away scot-free because of its many loopholes. Our higher and superior judiciary remains extra-vigilant in awarding death penalty, demonstrated by the small number of such decisions and which in fact remains one of the key complaints of the bosses in the police and the other law-enforcement agencies.
The government’s decision to partially lift the moratorium on the death penalty has come after a criminal delay of almost six years. During this period only one hanging occurred in 2012 and that too on the military’s insistence. The decision to reinstate the death penalty – a small step in the right direction – seems a knee-jerk government reaction to pacify public anger rather than a well-thought out strategy to fight terrorism in all its forms and manifestations.
The pertinent question remains: why did the respective governments of the PPP and the PML-N drag their feet on this important issue all these years? Was the threat of terrorism any less in the past than it is today? Was the blood of children and men, women, young and old not being shed in those bad old days? Were high-value sensitive defence and military organisations not being targeted and our soldiers and officers not being martyred? 
From the beheading of our soldiers in Taliban captivity to all the killing sprees as a result of unrelenting suicide attacks and bombings at our places of worships, schools, markets, passenger buses across the country, there has been one barbaric atrocity after another. So many that we have lost count. And when all this was happening, our civilian leadership remained in the grip of senseless inaction.
The Taliban apologists within their ranks argued and pleaded for so-called – and futile – peace talks which only gave more time to the Al-Qaeda-inspired-and-linked foreign and local militants including the Taliban to rest, regroup and reorganise to carry out more such attacks. How can one forget and forgive Interior Minister Nisar Ali Khan’s passionate performance on the floor of parliament after the killing of terrorist kingpin Hakeemullah Mehsud? If one believes his words at the time, Pakistan lost its only hope for peace with the killing of Mehsud. Many government stalwarts, Imran Khan and his PTI, the Jamaat-e-Islami, various factions of the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam – they all stand guilty of acting as Taliban apologists rather than unconditionally supporting the armed forces and creating a counter ideological narrative to defeat the extremist mindset.
It is ironic to see the way the civilian leadership is attempting to take credit for the launch of Operation Zarb-e-Azb in North Waziristan, for which the push came from Army Chief General Raheel Sharif and his top military leadership. Many of these civilian leaders reluctantly owned this operation, while others like Imran Khan chose to stay silent.
It was the force of circumstances which made them fall in line when Operation Zarb-e-Azb was launched and yet again the dictates of time made them partially scrap the death penalty. We have yet to see the vision, initiative, determination and sense of purpose from the civil leadership in confronting the twin ghost of religious extremism and terrorism – the gravest existentialist internal challenge faced by the country. 
It is only the armed forces that stand as our first and the last line of defence against the terrorist forces, which are trying to dismantle and wreck the state called Pakistan. All the rest remains a boring side-show full of clichéd statements, hollow claims and empty words.
The December 16 massacre of our children is our day of reckoning. Barren words fall short when we try to describe this tragedy. Mere statements offer no balm, no healing touch to the wounded souls of those parents, siblings and families who lost their loved ones at the hands of these barbarians. Many other similar, big and small, tragedies got erased from our collective conscience, but let’s keep this one alive and turn our grief into long-term sustained action. Let each of us play our role to defeat the extremist mindset – just as the armed forces are intensifying efforts against the terrorists. Pakistan is at war. Let’s make it win.

Hard Choices

Amir Zia
The News
Monday, December 08, 2014

Pakistan’s political divide is no longer based on the PPP versus the rest, but Imran Khan versus the rest. The traditional political forces can ignore the power of a determined ‘one’ only at their own cost. However, one important link that seems to be missing in this divide or is at least not playing its cards openly is the establishment, which is allowing political players to slog it out among themselves. 

For the beleaguered PML-N government, the worst phase of Imran Khan’s challenge of sit-ins and protests is apparently over – at least for now. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif looks relaxed and so are his close aides. They have concrete reasons to claim that they managed to ride out the storm that seemed to threaten the government and the system in mid-August and all through the month of September and the early days of October.
Allama Tahirul Qadri and his PAT have packed up their Islamabad sit-ins and now wait for some signal to fight another day. The elusive umpire did not raise the finger, leaving these political adventurists high and dry. All the traditional political and religious parties joined hands to save the country’s wobbling and dysfunctional democratic order. They acted with maturity and none of them tried to exploit the PML-N government’s moment of vulnerability.
The PML-N’s relations with the military establishment also seem to have found some uneasy equilibrium on the key geo-strategic and security issues. Barring the thorny issue of the trial of former president Pervez Musharraf on treason charges for imposing the November 2007 emergency, the civilian government has managed to survive by conceding space and allowing the military establishment to call the shots – whether it is on the war against terrorism or relations with neighbours and foreign powers. On the Musharraf issue, however, Sharif and the hawks in his cabinet remain adamant that the show must go on.
Imran Khan – despite the enthusiastic and swelling crowds at his rallies – appears increasingly politically isolated. Notwithstanding the PTI chairman’s frequent verbal tirades against the government and his threats to bring the major cities and then the country to a standstill – on which he and his team are having second thoughts, and appear unclear as to what they really want to do – for all practical purposes, the PTI has scaled down its set of demands. Imran Khan has given up his demand of Sharif’s resignation and wants negotiations with the government to pave the way for a judicial commission to probe the allegations of rigging in the 2013 general elections.
All these are good tidings for the PML-N. It means that Sharif has managed to get hold of valuable time in which he can attempt to reach a settlement with the PTI, quicken the pace of reforms – especially electoral changes which are needed and have been demanded by all the major political stakeholders – improve governance and address those pressing socio-economic issues that are fanning public discontent and anger.
But will that really happen? Will Sharif avail this window to do what needs to be done, showing vision, flexibility, political acumen and sagacity? Ironically, the signals from the Sharif camp are not too encouraging.
Background interviews with some key cabinet members give the impression that the ruling party is in no hurry for a deal with the PTI and wants to carry out reforms at its own snail’s pace as has been done for the past 17 months. The general idea appears to be to let Imran Khan and his rallies lose steam in their due course rather than to concede to any of the PTI’s demands – reasonable or unreasonable – in a hurry. The perception of handing over even a whiff of victory to Imran Khan or a face-saving exit does not appear a prudent strategy to the PML-N hawks.
One of the key federal ministers in the Sharif cabinet told the scribe in a lighter tone that ‘dharnas’ (sit-ins) suit the government as they have sidetracked many of those pressing issues on which the major opposition parties, including the PPP, won’t like to spare the government. “Now every political and economic ill in the country can be attributed to Imran Khan and his sit-ins. It is a perfect excuse to distract the people from the real issues – from the lingering energy crisis to the economic challenges which of course will take time to get resolved.”
The argument may make sense in the near-term but in the longer-term it reflects poor political choices. The prolonged uncertainty, turmoil and tensions are a bad omen not just for the government – underlining its inability to resolve these contradictions – but also for the democratic order which has many detractors who want to overhaul and reset the system.
In a strange twist of events, Pakistan’s political divide is no longer based on the PPP versus the rest, but Imran Khan versus the rest. The traditional political forces can ignore the power of a determined ‘one’ only at their own cost. However, one important link that seems to be missing in this divide or is at least not playing its cards openly is the establishment, which is allowing political players to slog it out among themselves. 
As the matter stands now, there appear to be little chances of a negotiated-settlement between the PML-N and the PTI as each side thinks that it will lose more in the public eye in case of any give-and-take. Imran Khan, who wants to settle for nothing less than a fresh poll as a result of any judicial commission probe or his politics of sit-ins, rallies and protests, perhaps sees it as a make-or-break decision for his political career.
Imran Khan’s demand that the government accept his terms of reference for the judicial commission in which he wants ISI and MI officials to help complete the probe from four to six weeks is seen by many legal minds as impossible to accept. The reason: the Supreme Court cannot be dictated how to conduct an inquiry or whom to call for assistance. Even the four- to six-week timeframe proposed by Imran Khan for the completion of the inquiry is too short. According to legal experts, a massive exercise of this nature – to find out whether there was widespread rigging in the elections – needs a longer period.
Given these pitfalls, the question is whether the PML-N and PTI will hold talks sincerely or sit across the table only for public consumption. The indications are that like the past, any fresh round of talks will lack seriousness from both the sides. But for the PML-N, perhaps a bigger challenge compared to Imran Khan is managing its relations with the military establishment, which so far has been constant in its support for the democratic setup. However, a lack of trust on both sides haunts this relationship. If one scratches the surface a little and talks to politicians – be they from the PML-N or any other major parliamentary party – one finds them blaming the ‘hidden hands’ or at least a section of the military establishment for the current political mess. In doing this, they fail to critically evaluate their poor governance and ignore the concerns of major stakeholders on the need to take them on board on important policy decisions. In a nutshell, it is the ‘us versus they’ mentality which also remains the root cause of imaginary or real problems between these two major state institutions. 
The civilian leadership will serve the cause of democracy better if it concentrates on providing clean, transparent and efficient governance, taking democracy to the grassroots level by holding the local bodies elections and building national and institutional consensus on vital policy issues.
On these three fronts, the scorecard of the civilian leaders is dismal. They have to improve their game if they are serious about strengthening democracy, which goes beyond the mere exercise of holding elections. The people of Pakistan deserve the fruits of democracy rather than just its tag.
Will Prime Minister Sharif transform himself into the leader the country wants him to be or will he remain hostage to the fears and enmities of the past? This is a make or break decision for him. Sharif’s frame of mind will keep him afloat or force him to commit the same old mistakes - which he must avoid in his own enlightened self-interest.

All About Handshakes

Amir Zia 
The News
Monday, December 01, 2014 

The persistent Pakistan-India deadlock does not mean that the top leaders of the two countries should also abandon basic courtesies and diplomatic norms. There can always be a symbolic handshake and a fake smile, which means nothing and says little if the paths of Sharif and Modi cross again in the near or distant future

You don’t have to be the best of friends to shake hands. It is really just a kind of courtesy that has been in vogue in many cultures and regions for more than two millennia now. Who should know this better than the two veteran politicians of South Asia – Narendra Modi and Nawaz Sharif – holding the destiny of the more than 1.4 billion people of India and Pakistan in their hands?
You shake hands often with complete strangers, knowing well that your paths are unlikely to cross again. Time and again, you shake hands with your rivals and even enemies – wearing a hypocritical smile on your face. In many cultures, deals are sealed and bets are placed with a mere handshake. With friends, of course, a warm handshake is a sign of affection.
Yes, in the modern world a handshake has long become a custom, at least in most formal interactions – no matter that the skin-to-skin contact often results in the spread of countless germs. Still, my dear readers, most of us take the risk of the germ exposure and shake hands. For it is the demand of our age and times.
It is only people devoid of basic manners or with conceited and immature minds who display their uncivilised emotions – of dislike, hatred and anger – by refusing to shake hands with rivals. This sort of behaviour is fairly common and even considered acceptable among school children, emotional teenagers, small-time neighbourhood goons and many self-absorbed men and women who lack cultivated and educated minds.
And of course the prime ministers of Pakistan and India do not fall into this category. They are among the best and savvy politicians on both sides of the great divide.
They must be aware that in the practical world, even all the ‘good’ and ‘charming’ villains posses the ability to conquer emotions and offer their hands to shake – with a smile. As Shakespeare aptly wrote in Hamlet; “That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain.”
The brief or extended up and down movement of the clasped hands of two individuals may mean nothing but just a display of manners, which certainly “are of more importance than morals’’ if one takes the advice of the great Irish writer, poet and master wit Oscar Wilde seriously and literally.
Many of the high mighty, and those in the making, act on this advice without even reading Wilde. It comes to them naturally, just by instinct. One finds this trait – of having good manners without morals – also among all social climbers.
Yet, at the inaugural session of the 18th Saarc Summit in Kathmandu, these two veteran leaders failed to do the basic doable, casting a shadow on the entire event. The Indian and Pakistani premiers refused even eye contact let alone shaking hands or exchanging courtesies with one another, though they shared the dais for nearly three hours. 
Sharif and Modi – sitting two seats away from one another – did not bother looking at each other. Their glum and serious faces and their deliberate efforts to avoid each other brought perhaps all the bad and the ugly of South Asian diplomacy in full public glare.
Agreed, Pakistan and India have shelved the bilateral talks’ process – courtesy Modi Sarkar’s obstinate and aggressive stance in which it wants to dictate the terms of engagement and even how to proceed on mere talks aimed to resume talks. (New Delhi cancelled the secretary-level talks scheduled in August because the Pakistani high commissioner met leaders of occupied Kashmir, which has otherwise been a long-time convention).
Agreed, that the two countries are far from breaking the deadlock as the troops of both countries frequently exchange fire at the Working Boundary in the disputed Kashmir region. 
But a brief handshake, which Sharif and Modi eventually did at the close of the Saarc Summit, was also possible at the inaugural session without all those unnecessary gestures bordering on farcical melodrama. Just a symbolic handshake, committing or meaning nothing, is common courtesy which heads of government should never hesitate to extend to their foes. 
Credit should go to the Pakistani leaders that, despite all the provocations, they have never said for once that they are not willing to come on the table for talks – even for the sake of talks. However, Islamabad remains justified in its demand that any future initiative for talks should come from New Delhi which alone is responsible for scuttling this process. 
It is indeed ironic that Saarc remains hostage to the tensions between its two largest nuclear-armed member states. It was just in the last hours of the summit that a symbolic Nawaz-Modi handshake saved the day much to the relief of other member nations and resulted at least in one agreement on electricity sharing and a common grid. The other two agreements on road and railways networks in the South Asian region were put on hold because of Pakistan’s objections. 
There should be no illusion that the impasse between Pakistan and India will end any time soon.
The Modi government’s domestic agenda, in which it aims to scrap the special status of occupied Kashmir as guaranteed in the Indian constitution, will prevent it from lowering tensions with Pakistan. Anti-Pakistan rhetoric and allegations of terrorism sell well in Modi’s hawkish India and are likely to yield fruits during state elections in India.
The Modi government’s hostile stance towards Pakistan and its efforts to isolate it in the region is indeed a personal setback for Sharif, who made improving relations with New Delhi one of the pillars of his foreign policy objectives. Sharif has to reconcile with the fact that the time for his ‘great idea’ has not come yet. His subjective desires of friendship with India and expanding trade and economic relations stand shattered due tos the harsh objective realties.
The Sharif government needs to have a holistic review of its policy towards India in which the initiative for the resumption or suspension of the talks seems to be in New Delhi’s hands. Islamabad appears to be only belatedly reacting to the aggressive Indian diplomatic and military posturing and practical steps. This makes it all the more necessary for Pakistan’s military and civilian leadership to work in tandem to counter the Modi challenge.
Prime Minister Sharif’s act of highlighting the Kashmir dispute to the world, including the United Nations, is a step in the right direction. There should be more aggressive efforts to make the world capitals aware of the Pakistani position since sticking to bilateralism – an Indian demand – is taking us nowhere.
The hawks and doves in Pakistan should both brace at best for a prolonged period of bad peace with their eastern neighbour – which is now a stark reality. The civilian and military leadership should agree to disagree with the Indian position.
But the persistent Pakistan-India deadlock does not mean that the top leaders of the two countries should also abandon basic courtesies and diplomatic norms. There can always be a symbolic handshake and a fake smile, which means nothing and says little if the paths of Sharif and Modi cross again in the near or distant future.

Mood Of The Moment

Amir Zia
The News 
Monday, November 24, 2014

Many Pakistanis, who celebrated the country’s return to democracy in 2008, now stand frustrated because of the miserable performance of the two successive governments on most fronts. Whether it is managing the pressing energy crisis, the inability to implement the broader socio-economic reform agenda or providing efficient governance, the scorecard of both the PPP and then the PML-N remains poor

Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and his dream team may not like to acknowledge and face the writing on the wall, but today’s Pakistan craves for sweeping changes in its political, social and economic power structure. 
One may differ and argue against the tactics of Imran Khan and Allama Tahirul Qadri, but what all they are saying is not completely nonsensical. A number of their demands and critical views on the state of affairs in our Islamic Republic resonates in the hearts and minds of a vast number of Pakistanis who dream of an equitable distribution of resources, justice, peace, political stability, development and modernity in their country.
Several major political parties – from the Jamaat-e-Islami to the Muttahida Qaumi Movement and from Baloch and Pakhtun nationalists to other smaller secular, religious and ethnic forces – are also articulating the call for change in one way or another. Some are chanting this mantra in anger and aiming to turn the system upside down, while others do so with restraint and are trying to achieve the goal without upsetting the applecart.
In their own way all these parties represent segments – big and small – of the politically conscious Pakistan. The common thread that runs through all these segments is that the present state of affairs is neither acceptable nor sustainable.
And, indeed, there appears to be a broad consensus on at least some of the issues among these ideologically and politically diverse forces despite all the apparent confusion, sharp divisions and lack of direction on how to move forward. This is yet another indication of a society that is on the tipping point of a major transformation – for good or for worse. 
For instance, all the political parties – whether demanding for Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s resignation or wanting him to complete his term – at least on paper want electoral reforms to ensure that the next elections are held in a free, fair and transparent manner.
Yet, the ruling PML-N and the main friendly opposition in parliament, the PPP, have been dragging their feet on this vital issue. How these two major parties are out of sync with the mood of the moment and the pressing urgency to go ahead with the electoral reform agenda is reflected in their deliberate and unpardonable delay in filling the vacant position of the chief election commissioner, which should have otherwise been an automatic process in a functioning democracy. But even after the passage of more than 15 months, the PML-N and the PPP have failed to do the doable, thereby forcing the Supreme Court to intervene. And through this tragedy of delay, they have made the entire process controversial.
Similarly, most political forces want the devolution of power to the grassroots level in the form of a strong local bodies system. Here again, both the PML-N and the PPP are the main stumbling block in their bid to keep powers and resources in the hands of the provincial governments.
The aversion of these two parties to the devolution of power – a must in a democratic order – is resulting in calls for the creation of new administrative units and even the extreme demand for new provinces by various disgruntled political parties. This is further polarising Pakistan’s already explosive politics.
However, holding local elections seem nowhere on the PML-N and the PPP’s agenda as they appear bent upon running 21st century Pakistan through the tried, tested and failed tactics of the past century.
What these forces and the present parliament offer is the democracy of the elite – the old big landowning families, tribal chiefs and the neo-rich representing commercial and business interests. The middle and lower middle classes have a token representation in parliament while peasants and workers – which form the majority – have none. The local bodies system, like the one introduced by former military ruler Pervez Musharraf, offers a more inclusive form of democracy compared to the one our so-called champions of democracy want to practise by keeping all the powers in their hands at the provincial level at the cost of the district and union level.
Imran Khan – though flanked by many of the scions of the old traditional powerful feudal families – and Allama Tahirul Qadri are at least putting the issue of devolution of power at the forefront in the national discourse. They can find many allies if they choose to broaden their anti-government campaign on this point alone.poor governance
The Imran-Qadri duo also reflects the sentiment of many Pakistanis when they attack , rampant corruption and inaccessibility of quick justice. Who can argue against their demands for reforms in the police force, giving it operational autonomy and freeing it from political interference?
Similarly, any politician highlighting the dismissal state of the education sector and healthcare facilities is championing the cause of the masses. Pakistanis have only witnessed deterioration on both these fronts despite the passage of the much-celebrated 18th Amendment and the NFC Award which have left provincial governments flush with money. The political parties – especially the PPP at the Sindh provincial level – have failed to build capacity and the ability to judicially utilise these resources for the benefit of the people.
Another life and death issue for the state of Pakistan is the challenge of religious extremism and terrorism. The civilian leadership, barring a few exceptions, unfortunately has been found wanting on this front. The entire responsibility of spearheading this effort has been left to the military leadership, which has forced the government to at least offer some lip-service to this cause. But in the ideological battle, the civilian leadership has failed to take ownership of this war or develop a counter-narrative. The successful Operation Zarb-e-Azb has created space for the civilian leaders to take on the extremist mindset, but this task hardly features on their agenda.
No wonder that many Pakistanis, who celebrated the country’s return to democracy in 2008, now stand frustrated because of the miserable performance of the two successive governments on most fronts. Whether it is managing the pressing energy crisis, the inability to implement the broader socio-economic reform agenda or providing efficient governance, the scorecard of both the PPP and then the PML-N remains poor.
Prime Minister Sharif may be justified when he says that it is too early to give a verdict on his government’s performance which has not even completed two years in office, but the problem is that the dark genie of public discontentment is out of the bag. The people’s expectations are huge, while the deliverables seem to be in short supply. There is growing impatience and restlessness among the people, but one sees no sense of urgency on the part of the rulers to right the wrongs. Sharif’s attempts to govern 21st century Pakistan by staying in the bubble of 1990s politics won’t work. 
The huge turnout at opposition rallies is a manifestation of the bad public mood. Imran Khan, Tahirul Qadri or any other politician have loads of issues at their disposal to whip up the sentiments of the people. In the cold, cruel and pragmatic world of power politics the end justifies the means.
Sharif has a choice… One is to prolong this state of misery for his government where it is unable to deliver against the backdrop of the country’s political instability and mounting opposition. This means more testing times not just for him but also for the country.
The second option: try making a sincere effort to strike a deal with the Imran-Qadri duo, which means a lot of give-and-take. Given the sharp political divide and inflexibility of both the sides this appears an unlikely scenario.
The third – perhaps a more daring – option is to grab the initiative and announce early polls to break the impasse. In this option, Sharif will gain a high moral ground to take on his opponents in the electoral battlefield in a bid to return to power. In the coming days, Sharif will have tough choices to make. The question is: will he be able to rise to the challenge? 

Imran's Second Innings

By Amir Zia
The News
November 17, 2014

Imran Khan’s political isolation, his unfulfilled expectations from the shadowy umpire and his party’s organisational weakness do not mean that the tough days for the Sharif government are over. In any political tussle, conflict and war a lot depends on the tenaciousness of the key protagonists.
 
More than three months after the launch of his campaign to oust Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif from power on August 14, Imran Khan now apparently seems to have landed himself into a blind alley. All the odds appear to be stacked against him.
His Islamabad sit-in has fizzled out. The massive crowds which Imran Khan hoped and promised to bring to Islamabad at the start of his ‘Freedom March’ never materialised. His main ally Allama Tahirul Qadri has taken a ‘short break’ from his ‘revolutionary’ struggle, casting a serious blow to the ‘Go Nawaz Go’ campaign. The series of public rallies the PTI has been holding in various cities – though huge and emotionally charged – are doing little to intensify pressure on the Sharif government. And the elusive umpire is now no longer even part of the mainstream political discourse.
The Sharif government after showing obvious signs of nervousness during the initial weeks of the ‘revolutionary and freedom’ marches and sit-ins by the PTI and the PAT appears to be breathing easy and hoping that in the long run it will be able to wear out its political opponents. And it has reasons to believe this.
Firstly, Imran Khan is a solo flyer. Barring a working alliance with the PAT and support by Sheikh Rasheed Ahmed’s small Awami Muslim League, he has failed to form a broad-based anti-Sharif alliance – a prerequisite in South Asian politics if any opposition is serious about challenging a well-entrenched government.
The parliamentary opposition, comprising the PPP and most of the traditional religious, nationalists, ethnic and political forces has put all its weight behind Sharif – or what they call saving democracy. The PTI has even been unable to take the Jamaat-e-Islami, its ally in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa provincial assembly, on board its venture to dislodge the Sharif government.
In fact, the PTI is being targeted and attacked by most opposition parties – from the PPP to the ANP and JUI-F to Baloch and Pakhtun nationalists – as much as it remains under fire by the ruling party. The friction between the PTI and the rest of the opposition is understandable given Imran Khan’s attempt to create political space for his party by eroding the vote bank of these traditional forces. On the one hand, he is trying to woo the right-wing vote bank by his strong anti-US rhetoric and sympathetic stance towards the local Taliban militants, while on the other he is attracting the liberal as well as onetime apolitical element which is fed up with the old guards due to their alleged corruption, misrule and bad governance.
But despite his popularity among many Pakistanis, Imran Khan stands politically isolated. Will he be able to broaden his anti-government campaign in the days to come by bringing other disgruntled political forces such as the MQM into its fold? The bigger question perhaps is: does he even intend to take this course?
Secondly, Imran Khan’s hopes that he will be able to cash in on Sharif’s estranged ties with the mighty military establishment also did not happen. His campaign only helped expose Sharif’s vulnerability and forced him to backtrack on key security and foreign affairs matters, but shrinking of this space for the civilian government went more in the favour of the military establishment than benefiting the PTI. 
With these two odds firmly against him, realistically speaking Imran Khan holds little chances to take his anti-government movement to the next level – at least for now. He needs a new element to bolster his flagging drive, which appears nowhere in sight.
Yet, call it Imran Khan’s determination or rigidity, his unyielding optimism or grand disillusion, that he is tenaciously trying to bowl hard and fast on a political pitch, which after showing some promise and unpredictably in the initial overs has apparently become dead and slow. The coveted wicket of Nawaz Sharif stays intact despite the initial ferocious spell by the PTI chairman. It appears that the World Cup winning captain has to settle for a long haul without any guarantees that at the end of it all he will be able to lift the dream cup of his political career.
In a way, at the Nov 9 rally in Rahim Yar Khan, Imran Khan climbed down a notch or two from his initial demand of Sharif’s resignation when he asked the government to form a judicial commission by November 30 to investigate the alleged rigging charges in the last elections. Imran Khan wants the commission to also comprise ISI and Military Intelligence officials and furnish its report within four to six weeks of its formation. Until then, according to Imran Khan, Sharif can stay in the office but should resign if the charges of electoral rigging prove correct. 
Imran Khan has vowed to not let the government function after Nov 30 if it fails to meet his latest demand, but the idea of including military personnel in the commission has already been shot down by Sharif’s team.
This means that Imran Khan will try to fulfil his promise of disrupting government functioning through protests, but does his PTI have the organisational capacity and ability that was possessed by the Jamaat-e-Islami, the MQM and the PPP of the olden days to launch street agitations and strikes as advocated by Sheikh Rasheed Ahmed. The PTI cadre has yet to prove its mettle in this regard.
However, Imran Khan’s political isolation, his unfulfilled expectations from the shadowy umpire and his party’s organisational weakness do not mean that the tough days for the Sharif government are over.
In any political tussle, conflict and war a lot depends on the tenaciousness of the key protagonists. In his play, Saint Joan, George Bernard Shaw summed it up so well in these words; “You should always attack; and if you only hold on long enough the enemy will stop first....”
Okay, the imagery of Joan of Arc does not gel with Imran Khan – the poor girl was burned on the stake for her conviction and simplicity. But calculated aggression and tenaciousness sometimes do work.
The political alignments can change anytime, the opponent can commit blunders (Sharif and his team have a great inherent capacity to open unnecessary fronts and take on useless fights) and help sometimes can come from the unknown quarters. Imran Khan seems to have the political stamina for a protracted fight, which is likely to keep the government on tenterhooks.
A prolonged tussle is ominous for the country and its economic and political fallout will hurt the government more than the opposition. While Imran Khan can afford to keep the pot on the boil, the government must show urgency to resolve the crisis in its own enlightened self interest. So far the government appears to be in no mood to avail the opportunity, which the backing of parliamentary parties has provided to it, and move quickly for a political settlement. 
The government can take the initiative by requesting at least for the formation of a judicial commission to probe the alleged charges of rigging in the 2013 elections, and acting swiftly for electoral reforms along with reopening of talks with the PTI and PAT. Unfortunately, it has been dragging its feet even on these issues.
As a result, the impasse is intensifying the country’s political instability and adding to the prevailing sense of uncertainty. The brewing crisis has all the potential to spin out of control if it is not managed now – before the start of the next round.
Imran Khan may look less threatening today than he was on August 14. Many of his demands may appear flawed or even unprincipled, but he has the hunger to make his mark and disrupt the apple cart. Sharif can afford to disregard him at his own peril.
For in practical politics, nothing succeeds like success. There is nothing moral or immoral – it is an amoral game. The ultimate goal justifies the means. Who should know this better than Nawaz Sharif, our most experienced third-time elected prime minister?

The Deepest Cut

Amir Zia

November 10, 2014

The News

Do we now stand on hopeless grounds? Is the growing tide of extremism irreversible? The answer to these questions lies on whether our prime minister will be able to match his words with actions and we as a nation are able to rise and unite to save Pakistan and its soul from extremists. The wound of the Kot Radha Kishan tragedy must force us to act.

Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif issued a politically correct statement that a responsible state cannot tolerate “mob rule and public lynching with impunity.” The statement came in response to the horrifying act of vigilante violence in which a Christian couple – accused of desecrating the Holy Quran – was severely tortured and then burnt to death in a brick kiln by a mob in Kot Radha Kishan, barely 60 kilometers from Lahore.

The incident has sparked the usual flurry of angry statements from rights groups, some leading Islamic scholars and clerics, political parties and official quarters, which unanimously condemned the brutal double murder and called for stern action against the perpetrators of this heinous crime. The words of Prime Minister Sharif, too, appear to assure – at least on paper – that the state has to proactively act “to protect its minorities from violence and injustice.”

But haven’t we all heard such politically correct statements scores of times in the past as well whenever such brutalities are committed on an individual or collective basis by the religious zealots? Have these statements made any difference in the 21st century Pakistan where religious intolerance and extremism appear to be on the rise? Have the state and its institutions managed to punish those responsible for such barbaric acts?

The November 4 public brutality in Kot Radha Kishan, in which the Christian couple – Shahzad, 35, and his pregnant wife Shama, 31 – lost their lives, is not the first and will certainly not be the last one in our Islamic Republic.

Given the eroding writ of the state and the growing religious bigotry, this dangerous trend is all set to continue. A mere allegation of blasphemy has now become enough to seal the fate of an accused in today’s Pakistan. There is not even any room left to hold the trial of the accused under the country’s blasphemy laws. If the person accused of blasphemy is saved from the mob, he or she can be killed in police custody or in jail.

The state has become too frail and too feeble even to properly prosecute individuals who kill and resort to violence in the name of religion – especially on unproven charges of blasphemy. 

A case in point is that of Joseph Colony, Lahore where rioters torched more than 150 houses and two churches on March 9, 2013 over allegations of blasphemy against a Christian man. The police arrested more than 100 rioters, but all of them were set free as none could be proven guilty.

One can keep counting cases of murders and vigilante violence, from the high-profile assassination of Governor Salmaan Taseer in January 2011 in Islamabad to the burning to death of a mentally disabled person in Bahawalpur in July 2012, in which the state failed to get a single conviction.

Should we expect any different results from the arrests of people accused of the Kot Radha Kishan tragedy? If the past is any witness, then there is hardly any hope.

Most of the recognised Islamic scholars have a broad consensus that vigilante violence and taking the law in one own hands stand against the tenets of Islam. Only the state can punish a person once charges of blasphemy are undisputedly proven. The country’s religious-political parties also have a similar position.

Veteran scholars like Mufti Muhammed Naeem of Jamia Binoria, Karachi and Allama Tahir Ashrafi, Chairman Ullman Board Pakistan, have expressed their angst over the burning to death of the Christian couple and demanded that the government administer swift justice to those responsible for the crime.

They have argued that the inaction of the state and its inability to punish the culprits are the main reason for the surge in such acts of mob and individual violence.

Certainly, the government needs to show zero tolerance when it comes to dealing with such cases, but more importantly and as a long-term measure it has to create an environment where religious diversity and tolerance is celebrated.

That remains a tall order and requires, as a first step, reforms in our mainstream education system as well as seminaries. 

Preventing the misuse of pulpits in many of the mosques for inciting religious or sectarian hatred and fanaticism is also easier said than done. In fact, barring the lip-service to this cause, the government has failed to take any meaningful step in this direction, including framing effective laws or implementing the ones already on the books. 

It is not just the Sharif government, but most of the past governments as well which stand guilty of apathy and paralysis when it comes to taking on the challenge of religious extremism, intolerance and lawlessness in our society.

The failure of successive governments to tackle religiously-motivated violence and extremism sends the message that one can get away even with murder by exploiting the sacred name of Islam.

This has resulted not just in an unending vicious cycle violence against ordinary Pakistanis, mostly Muslims, and sectarian killings, but has also made the religious minorities excessively vulnerable.

Religious minorities – mainly Hindus and Christians – comprise a little over three percent of Pakistan’s population according to the 1998 census. (The figures can be grossly misleading as there has not been an official census in the country for the past 16 years.) 

According to Sadiq Daniel, Bishop of Karachi and Balochistan Diocese, never in the past have Christians and Hindus living in Pakistan felt so threatened, helpless and weak.

“I am saying it for the first time that religious minorities are afraid of living in Pakistan… I never said this before, but today I am forced to say this,” he told the scribe while discussing the Kot Radha Kishan atrocity. “If there is no space for religious minorities in Pakistan, simply tell us.”

Similar sentiment is shared by many other leaders of the country’s religious minorities – perhaps in much stronger words. They say that false allegations of blasphemy are being made against members of the religious minorities to settle personal scores or over disputes on financial matters.

This was apparently the case with Shahzad and Shama who, according to the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan had a dispute over wages, or recovery of advance money that the kiln owner had extended to two families of Muslim labourers who had escaped. “The kiln owners had asked Shahzad to repay the amount extended to the escaped families because he had introduced them to the owners”, the HRCP said.

He levelled charges of blasphemy against them following which announcements were made through mosque loudspeakers, provoking hundreds of villagers.

Similarly, the name of religion is exploited for abducting women and even young girls belonging to minority communities and their forced conversions to the Muslim faith. Neither any Islamic scholar nor the constitution of Pakistan allow brutalities and discrimination against religious minorities, but sadly they have become a norm in today’s Pakistan.

Quaid-e-Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah’s dream that in this state of Pakistan, “you are free; you are free to go to your temples. You are free to go to your mosques or to any other places of worship”, stands trampled.

Reclaiming Jinnah’s Pakistan, freeing it of religious bigotry, extremism, intolerance and violence remain the biggest challenge for our generation. We appear to be losing this fight at the hands of the same mindset from which the country’s founding fathers had once liberated us to create Pakistan.

Do we now stand on hopeless grounds? Is the growing tide of extremism irreversible? The answer to these questions lies on whether our prime minister will be able to match his words with actions and we as a nation are able to rise and unite to save Pakistan and its soul from extremists. The wound of the Kot Radha Kishan tragedy must force us to act.

Sharing Sindh

By Amir Zia
November 3, 2014
The News

Let’s try to live as one people and share Sindh rather than raising the slogan that ‘we will die but not hand over Sindh to others’. In today’s world, the battle-cries of the 19th century are not likely to work.

Our good luck that Cyclone Nilofar bypassed Karachi and other coastal parts of Sindh – but that does not mean that citizens of this restive province can breathe easy now. The political atmosphere continues to remain overcast and has all the ingredients to stoke a perfect storm in this ethnically diverse and poorly governed province.
The MQM’s recent parting of ways with the PPP – the fifth since December 2010 – is just a symptom of the brewing storm in Sindh. The exchange of angry, bitter and provocative statements between the two sides is not the cause but the manifestation of major contradictions which the political stakeholders in Sindh have failed to address on the basis of give-and-take.
The emotional slogans for the creation of a Mohajir province – from which the MQM has been quick to distance itself – and the PPP’s young chairman Bilawal Bhutto Zardari’s reiteration of the historic 19th century battle cry of Hoshu Mohammed Sheedi against the British forces – ‘Marvesoon, Marvesson, par Sindh na Desoo’ (We will die but not hand over Sindh to others) – are mere distractions from the core problems of this province. 
However, such emotional slogan-mongering has all the potential to ignite passions of hatred and aggravate violence and lawlessness in Sindh, which has a long history of low- to high-intensity bloodletting on one pretext or the other. Political and ethnic turf wars, sectarian and religiously motivated killings, terrorism, and organised crime coupled with a dysfunctional civic, administrative and judicial system make Sindh, especially its urban centres, one of the biggest governance challenges in the country. The thin veneer of apparent normality can shatter anytime if the political stakeholders continue to stoke ethnic passions for their narrow self-interests.
Ironically, these grave issues do not even appear on the agenda of the major parties for a serious and dispassionate debate and discussion, let alone any meaningful efforts for their resolution. 
What ails this resource-rich province?
You ask the PPP leaders and they will come up with a long list of complaints against their former ally, the MQM, about how it brutalised and criminalised politics in urban Sindh – especially Karachi. They blame the MQM’s unbending desire to dominate and monopolise politics of the province’s urban centres as the major source of conflict and discord.
You ask the MQM and hear graphic details about the PPP’s pathetic governance record, massive corruption and indifference toward the issues of both the urban and rural population. The MQM’s long list of complaints include the PPP’s unwillingness to hold local bodies elections, and its controversial decisions to place urban institutions – such as the Karachi Building Control Authority – under the provincial government by rechristening it as the Sindh Building Control Authority.
In a nutshell, the MQM demands devolution of power and a fair distribution of financial resources and jobs, though it usually fails to effectively articulate the case of urban areas because of its penchant for aggressively raising non-issues that overshadow even its fair demands.
A case in point is how the MQM reacted to the PPP’s senior leader Syed Khursheed Shah’s alleged derogatory remarks about ‘Mohajirs’ and accused him of blasphemy. Mercifully, MQM leader Altaf Hussain gave prudent advice to his local leadership to stop targeting Shah in their statements and refrain from raising sensitive issues. But that happened after a lot of bad blood had already been created. Many wondered about the direction of this urban-based party, which wants to portray itself as a liberal, moderate, progressive and democratic force.
The MQM’s efforts to emerge as a multi-ethnic party, with roots in all the provinces, face an obstacle from within as its lawmakers and representatives keep returning to the Mohajir card. This has happened too often in recent years. The MQM painstakingly takes 10 baby-steps to dispel the perception that it is an ethnic party, but then one giant leap backwards wrecks all the previous hard work.
The MQM think tank needs to ponder over this dilemma. Creating a multi-ethnic party should not be a matter of mere political slogan, but an unwavering belief.
If the MQM is serious about transforming itself into a national party, it should try to unite people on the basis of common issues rather than narrow ethnic lines. Given the fast changing demography of urban Sindh, perhaps this is in the enlightened self-interest of the MQM or any other political force aiming to do popular politics in Sindh.
The absence of a mass-transit system in Karachi, a mega city of more than 18 million people, hurts people belonging to all the ethnic groups. They need a champion to raise this demand. Similarly, soaring crimes, terrorism and extremism affects every Karachiite – new or old. The demand for an effective local bodies system, devolution of power to the district level, rule of law, the dream of living in a modern, organised, and peaceful city – these issues are close to the heart of all sane minds, regardless of their sectarian, ethnic or religious affiliations.
Even those political forces that practically abhor the idea of strong local governments and devolution of power – as is the case with both the PPP and the PML-N which derive power from their respective provincial governments in Sindh and Punjab – are not in a position to openly oppose these demands on principle. At best, they can apply delaying tactics as they have been doing since 2008 and blunt the local bodies system by curtailing its powers – as has been the case.
The pro-devolution forces, however, can mobilise public opinion and launch protests to get their demands accepted. It would be a tall order, but is doable within the norms of democratic and constitutional struggle. The only challenge is how to articulate, present and fight the pro-people case.
On its part, the PPP has long abandoned the politics of Sindh’s urban areas. It seems content being the party that overwhelmingly represents the interest of the ruling elite of rural Sindh. The poor and downtrodden people, including the landless peasants, of Sindh continue to be mesmerised by the Bhutto card.
But the question is: for how long? When it comes to delivering the fruits of democracy – which go beyond the mere right to vote – the PPP has been unable to bring about social and economic development even in its rural bastion of power and the smaller cities and towns of Sindh. Poor governance and rampant corruption is not just a perception about the PPP, but a reality.
In Karachi, the party empowered gangs of criminals in a few of its remaining strongholds including Lyari. It failed to take ownership of the provincial capital, which has become more inhospitable, uglier, lawless and chaotic under the stewardship of former president Asif Ali Zardari’s near and dear ones. Yes, the ageing Chief Minister Syed Qaim Ali Shah is only a symbolic head; the real power in Sindh is in the hands of Zardari’s chosen ones under whom all sorts of mafias have prospered and thrived – starting from encroachment and builders’ mafias to those running water hydrants, and those placing billboards on every available space, even on the fast dwindling footpaths.
It is a city where civic services are on the brink of collapse, water has to be bought from truckers, and a vast number of people have to travel on the rooftops of rickety passenger buses and vans. One can keep adding to this list, which makes Karachi a hard, dangerous place to live and where crime and politics feed one another.
No wonder there is so much rage and pent up emotions among the dwellers of Karachi. They want a change. Will the PPP, the MQM or any other force manage to transform itself inside out and lead the way? Objectively speaking, this miracle seems nowhere in sight. 
But for a change, let’s try to live as one people and share Sindh rather than raising the slogan that ‘we will die but not hand over Sindh to others’. In today’s world, the battle-cries of the 19th century are not likely to work.

The Hour Of Trial

Amir Zia
Monday, October 20, 2014
The News

It was hard to imagine that Sharif, who got more or less a perfect start to his third stint in power following the 2013 general elections, would be on the ropes barely less than 18 months into power. 


Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif may have succeeded in clinging to power for now against the backdrop of anti-government sit-ins in Islamabad and mammoth public rallies in the other major cities, but Pakistan’s political turmoil remains far from over. Rather, it is all set to aggravate.
The country’s fast drift towards intense political instability has now become a stark reality given the extreme and confrontationist positions the two squabbling sides have taken.
The heightened political polarisation is likely to consume most of the government’s energy and attention in the coming weeks and months as it attempts to counter its rivals and remain afloat. It means Sharif and his team's ability and capacity to improve governance or concentrate on mid- to long-term policy measures vital to address pressing issues will reduce further. This will whip up public discontent and add to the opposition campaign demanding Sharif’s resignation.
Apart from the challenge the continuous political instability poses for the government, it is also harmful for the state, which faces multiple grave challenges – from border tensions with India to the protracted internal fight against extremists and terrorists. Add to the list Pakistan’s economic woes, the crippling energy crisis, the dysfunctional state of many of the country’s public sector institutions, including social services, and the soaring crime rate, and we have all the ingredients needed to keep Pakistan’s political pot on the boil. Real or imaginary public perceptions about rampant corruption and misrule only complicate an already volatile situation.
For any government or state, failure to resolve internal contradictions and overcome challenges is indeed a nightmarish scenario. Ironically, Sharif failed to move fast to prevent the impeding confrontationist politics that started on August 14 with Imran Khan’s self-proclaimed ‘Azadi’ (freedom) and Allama Tahirul Qadri’s ‘Inqilabi’ (revolutionary) marches. 
In fact, the Shahbaz Sharif-led Punjab government provided all the fuel to the fire with its ill-advised crackdown on Qadri’s supporters in Lahore which killed at least 11 people and wounded more than 90.
Even after the formal launch of the sit-in politics outside parliament in Islamabad, Sharif failed to capitalise on the unanimous support given by all the parties in the house and their efforts to find a negotiated-solution with the help of the self-styled ‘political jirga’ that tried to broker a deal between the government and the Imran-Qadri duo. According to the Jamaat-e-Islami chief, Sirajul Haq, the non-serious approach on the part of the government and the inflexible attitude displayed by both the sides are to blame for the failure of the direct and indirect talks.
Now with both Imran Khan’s PTI and Qadri’s PAT holding large public meetings in various major cities and planning to take their protests to the next level – which includes calls for general strikes after the month of Moharram – the tidings are bad for the besieged Sharif government.
Sharif – being an elected prime minister – on principle may be justified in asking why he should resign on the demand of a few, several, or tens of thousands of protesters. But in politics popular waves and street agitation hardly take into account the delicacies of the constitution and what is politically correct or incorrect. Being an old hand in politics Sharif should know better. 
Sharif failed to act promptly on the early signs of discord and dissatisfaction. Had he opened the four National Assembly seats for scrutiny – the initial demand of Imran Khan – before the start of the August 14 marches, it is possible that he would have given Imran Khan one less reason to agitate against him. Instead, his government provided every excuse to his bitter rivals to intensify polarisation. A case in point is the way the government initially tried to avoid registering an FIR for the Model Town killings by the police. That was done only after judicial intervention.
The failure of the political players to end the deadlock has led the country’s entire polity into a blind alley. If the crisis prolongs, only active intervention by the judiciary or the army can end this gridlock. Should our politicians allow this to happen?
It was hard to imagine that Sharif, who got more or less a perfect start to his third stint in power following the 2013 general elections, would be on the ropes barely less than 18 months into power. 
There was a first-ever peaceful and constitutional transfer of power from one elected government to another. There was a broad consensus among all the major stakeholders, including the country’s most powerful institution of the armed forces, that democracy and constitutional rule are the only way forward. Sharif’s comfortable majority in parliament – without the crutches of allies – triggered hopes for a strong and stable government. Sharif’s pro-business image raised expectations of bold and quick reforms.
The smooth transition in the leadership of the judiciary and the Pakistan Army also went in Sharif’s favour. It may now look odd how Sharif’s political fortunes eroded in a short span of time. The credit for that goes to Sharif’s style of politics, paving the way for the unimaginable to happen.
He took all the wrong turns which not only created unease within the institutions but also aligned the relatively non-traditional and new political forces aiming for greater political space and challenging the current democratic order which is skewed in favour of two old parties – the PML-N and the PPP.
To begin with, Sharif dragged his feet and wasted precious time in holding futile peace talks with the Al-Qaeda inspired local Taliban militants. It was only after a tough signal from the armed forces that he reluctantly took ownership of the much-delayed operation against the militants.
In relations with India, he again failed to take all the stakeholders into confidence and showed undignified haste in offering a one-sided olive branch to New Delhi without reading the intentions and mood of the hard-line Hindu nationalist leader Narendra Modi. The recent skirmishes at the working boundary between the two nuclear-armed South Asian neighbours and New Delhi’s aggressive and hardened posture toward Islamabad indicate that those advising restraint and caution to Sharif in his peace bid were right.
Sharif and his cabinet members also opened an unnecessary front by targeting former military ruler Pervez Musharraf for ‘selective justice.’ The kind of language the two Khawajas in the Sharif cabinet used against Musharraf only worsened the distrust between the civil and the military leadership.
Sharif’s banking on his kitchen cabinet comprising mainly relatives and close friends alienated many even with the PML-N camp. The time he took in taking key decisions, even in the appointment of the heads of government institutions and regulatory bodies, only cemented the perception of inefficiency and incompetence of his government.
No wonder that more than 20 major institutions – from chief election commissioner to the head of Pemra – are now being run on an ad hoc basis. Institutions including PIA, the Federal Services Tribunal, the Karachi Port Trust and Pakistan Council of Scientific and Industrial Research remain without organisational heads.
Can Sharif and all the forces which stand for the status quo of the current democratic order crawl back from the brink and give Pakistan its much-needed political stability? That remains a tough question with no easy answers. 
However, what Pakistan desperately requires is a strong, stable government which ends this current state of political disorder and chaos. A government that focuses on the existentialist internal threat posed by Al-Qaeda-inspired and -linked terrorists and can stand against the aggressive designs of a Modi-led India. A government that can end this lawlessness, establish the writ of the state, initiate bold reforms and revive the economy. Ideally this democratic order should be able to deliver all this, but it is failing. Who else then?

The Girl Who Lives

By Amir Zia
Monday, October 13, 2014
The News

Malala has shown us the way...She will remain an icon of courage, grit and resolve. But can our politicians now fulfil their responsibility please? Can they work to make Pakistan peaceful and safe so that Malala can return home?... This young life needs to be celebrated.


After a long, long time, Pakistanis have a genuine reason to celebrate an unprecedented feat of a local champion. It is after ages that Pakistan has hit the headlines in the world media for all the right reasons – thanks to Malala Yousafzai, the teenage girl who courageously stood against the dark forces opposing girls’ education in her hometown of Swat, took a bullet to the head for her defiance and fortunately lived to fight on.
The Nobel Peace Prize, which Malala shares with an Indian child rights campaigner, Kailash Satyarthi, is an acknowledgement of the way she fought for the right of girls to education despite her tender age. 
Malala “has shown by example that children and young people too can contribute to improving their own situations,” said Thorbjorn Jagland, chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, while paying tribute to her. “This she has done under the most dangerous circumstances. Through her heroic struggle she has become a leading spokesperson for girls' rights to education.”
Malala, 17, is now the youngest ever Nobel Laureate. But she was barely 12 years old when in 2009 she started her crusade against the Taliban in Swat and their attempts to close the doors of education on girls. She wrote a blog under the pen name ‘Gul Makai’ for the BBC, highlighting life under the oppressive Taliban rule. Her ‘Diary of a Pakistani schoolgirl’ made the world aware of the plight of all Malalas…and the brutal nature of conflict in one of Pakistan’s most scenic and once serene mountainous regions.
“The night was filled with the noise of artillery fire and I woke up three times. But since there was no school I got up later at 10 am. Afterwards, my friend came over and we discussed our homework. Today is 15 January, the last day before the Taliban’s edict comes into effect, and my friend was discussing homework as if nothing out of the ordinary had happened,” she wrote in one of her dispatches.
The Pakistan Army ousted the Mullah Fazlullah-led Taliban out of Swat valley, and life started getting back to an apparent normality. But the danger of Taliban sleeper cells and terrorist attacks continued to haunt the residents of the region – especially all those who stood against the militants. Malala was a marked target as she continued with her campaign.
On October 9, 2012, Malala was shot in the head by a Taliban gunman. Two of her other classmates – Kainat Riaz and Shazia Ramazan – were also wounded in the attack. It was a sheer miracle that Malala survived as the bullet did not enter her brain. Within days, she was sent to England for further treatment.
Just like the fictional wizard boy Harry Potter, who survived the assault by the dark wizard, Lord Voldemort, Malala too become the girl ‘who lived.’ Sometimes real life events are stranger than fiction and transform humble mortals into legends. 
And Malala not just lives, but continues to make waves, fighting all the demons and ghosts of intolerance, bigotry, extremism and terrorism while living abroad. Pakistan still is too unsafe a place for her to return to and live a normal life. Even before becoming the youngest ever Nobel laureate, Malala was an internationally-recognised voice for girls’ rights to education. Now she has become a more potent force.
Pakistanis do not have just this reason to celebrate Malala’s achievement; they also got a symbol to look up to. She is leading even through little actions. For instance after one of her teacher gave her the ‘big news’ that she won the Nobel Prize, she stuck with her remaining lessons. She did not rush back home to celebrate the big day with her family or jumped into the media limelight to deliver the Nobel Prize acceptance speech. She took her time. And when she spoke to the world it was yet again a powerful message given with all earnestness, but with remarkable humility. “I really believe in tolerance and patience. I used to say that I do not think I deserve the Nobel Peace Prize. I still believe that”, she said while talking to the media in Birmingham. “I decided that I would speak up. Through my story I want to tell other children all around the world they should stand up for their rights… They should not wait for someone else. This award is especially for them, it gives them courage.”
All our politicians – those trying to dislodge the government and those wanting to save it – should learn from the maturity, grace and poise of young Malala how to carry themselves during an ordeal or in triumph.
Malala’s accomplishment also underscores the mind-boggling paradox of the Pakistan society which can produce 21st century men and women as well as those who are incompatible with the modern times. The polarisation between those who stand for peace, tolerance, education and progress and those fighting to impose their narrow and intolerant worldview by hook or by crook could not have been starker.
The gravest challenge for the Pakistani society is how to defeat those forces that abhor our Malalas and justify acts of terrorism and suicide bombings by exploiting the sacred name of Islam. In this day and age, Al-Qaeda, its foreign and local allies and the extremist mindset, which thrives in society in many forms, vehemently oppose initiatives like girls’ education to polio vaccination drives.
Operation Zarb-e-Azb is one way of blunting their deadly designs, but the more important aspect to this make-or-break struggle for Pakistan is defeating this mindset. Unfortunately, it cannot be done with the barrel of the gun alone. It requires winning the battle of the narrative and defeating extremist ideology. Here, the civil society and our political parties – both in the government and the opposition – need to take the lead. So far, our politicians have not shown the kind of commitment and vision needed to confront this existentialist internal threat to Pakistan. 
Many of our political and mainstream religious parties chose to remain silent or only offered lip service to the cause of the fight against extremism and terrorism. Many politicians – either because of fear for their lives or simple expediency – still want to push the policy aimed at appeasing these non-state actors.
These efforts failed in the past and only made the situation more complex. This tried, tested and failed formula won’t be able to do the trick even now. The civil leadership needs to do a lot more than offering mere statements that they support Operation Zarb-e-Azb. It needs to take ownership of this fight and work extra hard to mobilise public opinion against these forces for unity, peace and progress in Pakistan.
Young Malala has shown us the way. She is likely to carry the cross and live up to the extra burden and responsibility which the Nobel Peace prize has placed on her. She will be a symbol and inspiration for many, both young and old, not just for girls’ right to education, but also for peace and tolerance in society. She will remain an icon of courage, grit and resolve. But can our politicians now fulfil their responsibility please? Can they work to make Pakistan peaceful and safe so that Malala can return home? Can they learn something from Malala? Can you and I emulate her footsteps – even a few baby steps?
This young life needs to be celebrated. The girl ‘who lived’ is of our own modern-day folklore… another legend. But the story is not yet over. It is still in the making.