Should Rehman Malik resign?
March 7th, 2011
Like an unwanted guest who sits and chats well after dinner, Pakistani politicians can never figure out when they have overstayed their welcome. While resignations are fairly common in our politics, they are rarely an act of principle or acknowledgement of failure. Interior Minister Rehman Malik, who has overseen more disasters than most, has become a master of excuse-making and rationalisations. No matter what happens, he is always on hand to point out that it was someone else’s fault. Sometimes he may even be right but what is most galling is that, at a time when the country is in mourning, the last thing we need is a government grandee who seems affected not by the unfolding tragedy, but at the thought of losing his cushy job.
Malik indulged in a particularly crass form of blame-shifting in the wake of minority affairs minister Shahbaz Bhatti’s murder. In defending his actions, or his inaction in providing sufficient security to Bhatti, he ended up blaming the late minister himself, saying that Bhatti had refused extra protection. That may well be true, but now was hardly the time to bring it up. Malik’s tone veered between defensiveness and belligerence, neither of which suited the sombre occasion. Instead, he should have declared that he would resign his position were an independent inquiry to find that he had not fulfilled his duties.
Sadly, Malik is far from the only politician unwilling to consider resignation for dereliction of duty or even on a point of principle. Just recently we have witnessed former foreign minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi launch a crusade against the government for its role in the Raymond Davis case. As is typical, he didn’t see the need to publicly speak out while he was still foreign minister, preferring to wait till he was stripped off his office. In fact, the history of Pakistan politics is one of leaders insisting that the buck doesn’t stop with them. They prefer to blame their failures on conspiracies hatched by their enemies. Even if they don’t resign, it would be refreshing to see a politician admit to a mistake occasionally.
Missing in Balochistan
March 7th, 2011
It has long been an open secret that paramilitary forces and intelligence agencies have been holding sway in Balochistan. This was finally acknowledged by the province’s advocate general, Salahuddin Mengal, in front of the Supreme Court, when he revealed that the Frontier Constabulary (FC) was picking up and even killing people. Although not a surprise, this revelation is important because the Supreme Court is the only institution in the country that has shown the courage to take on the army. The court must now haul up senior officers of the FC to explain the role it is playing in Balochistan.
However, the Supreme Court alone cannot solve Balochistan’s problems. The utter lack of confidence the Baloch have in the army and the federal government requires much greater action. Separatist sentiment is now running deep in the province and the provincial government lacks legitimacy because most political figures have boycotted mainstream politics. Bringing them back into the fold should be an immediate priority. This would require the army to recede and take a low profile, and an accounting of all those who went missing in the province. Following that, a far greater share in the spoils of Balochistan’s economic development needs to be given to locals. From the development of a deep-sea port in Gwadar to royalties in mining projects, the Baloch feel they have been deliberately cheated out of profits from their resources. Only after this is rectified, will the separatist parties begin to tone down their rhetoric.
The most pressing and hurtful issue right now, though, is that of the ‘missing’ people. Human rights groups and Baloch political parties claim as many as 13,000 people are missing in the province, while the provincial government acknowledges fewer than 1,000 people have been picked up. Even if the true number lies somewhere in between, these statistics need to be reconciled. After that, a promise needs to be given that no citizen of Balochistan need ever fear for his life just for exercising his right to political dissent.
A case of double standards
March 7th, 2011
The petition put before a Lahore court by a man who claims to be the husband of film actress Meera, demanding that she be subjected to a medical examination to determine her virginity, is completely absurd and is yet another example of the double standards and hypocrisy increasingly becoming rampant in Pakistani society on matters related to women. The best that the court can do is to not entertain such a petition, not least because it is not as if the actress is an accused or a criminal who needs to prove her innocence. Furthermore, given the existing misogynistic climate prevailing in the country, it would seem that the objective of the petition is to embarrass and defame the defendant. Meera has already denied that she was ever married to the man and has claimed the whole matter is the consequence of a business dispute.
Our obsession with matters of morality is increasing. Women are, most often, the targets of this obsession. Indeed, no one cares very much as to whether or not a man has relations outside marriage or other aspects of his behaviour since one cannot recall ever such a case being brought before a court where a man was asked to prove anything. The focus is on women and their doings and our whole skewed concept on honour is bound with this. Women in the world of show business, like Meera or Veena Malik, are especially susceptible because they are held as torch-bearers of the nation’s honour (hence the outrage when Ms Malik becomes friendly with an Indian actor) and judged solely on that, mostly by righ-twing elements in our political parties, media and society in general. The judge in the matter must demonstrat e wisdom, not play to the galleries, and ensure that the dignity of all parties in the case is protected. This would, in fact, seem to be the key issue in deciding a matter where the claim of one adult essentially stands against the other and little proof seems to exist either way.