Alfred's Story

I recently watched The Dark Knight Rises, and like many others came back slightly disappointed that it didn’t live up to its promise. It all started off with the somewhat gargantuan task of bringing Batman to this world in Batman Begins. Unlike all previous attempts where Gotham City was some twisted fairy-tale land, Batman Begins tried to make the movie feel as normal and real-life as possible (for a Superhero/Disaster movie anyway). Suddenly it showed up the silliness of all other superhero movies that were still stuck in that fantasy land script.

The villain selected for the first movie was also very interesting. Ra’s al Ghul and the League of Shadows were no mutated half-man half-beast character with an army of minions, but they were in fact normal human beings with a mission. A mission, in fact, which seemed very closely to mirror the narrative on Al-Qaeda – Gotham had become too decadent and must be destroyed. So, in effect, they were high-functioning, highly sophisticated terrorists. Some say Americans have a slight obsession with the concept, but who can say? Obviously, all ends well when Batman intervenes and Gotham City can go back to its decadent ways. Well, not quite, while Bruce Wayne and Wayne Industries work tirelessly to give back to the community, his alter ego is out at nights cleaning up scum the old-fashioned way. A two-pronged long term approach to a complex problem – so far so good.

And then came the Joker. The simple fact is, the second film of the trilogy was just too good to be matched. The Joker was the ultimate villain, and if I may be so bold, the ultimate terrorist. A man whose simple pleasures of dynamite and gunpowder meant he had no higher purpose than to instill terror, making him impervious to reason or threat. The randomness of his actions was what made The Dark Knight thrilling and brilliant; there literally was no telling what he might do next. And to top it all off, the movie gave you a feeling of depth, as if some profound philosophy was being imparted amidst all the cool gadgets and explosions. Phrases like “the hero Gotham deserves but not the one it needs right now” just blew your mind.

When the law was powerless to deal with a genius madman who brought Gotham to the brink of destruction, the caped crusader took things into his own hands. Not just being the vigilante warrior against organised crime, but also going all Patriot Act on everyone in the end because desperate times called for desperate measures. This was not the time for heroics but for practicality, because as Alfred described the Joker, they were dealing the kind of man who just wanted to see the world burn.

*Screeching to a halt*

Now this is what I couldn’t understand. I watched the movie end to end and was enthralled by it, but Alfred’s little story stuck in my head. I couldn’t make any sense of it. For a revision, here’s the link.

So, Alfred and his friends were working for the local government in Burma. The first thought that sprang to mind was ‘colonial government?’, but considering Alfred’s age, possibly not. This ‘local government’ is trying to bribe tribal leaders with jewels to get their support, but someone keeps looting the caravans, and throwing the stones away. Why? Only one possible explanation comes to Alfred’s mind – he was a madman who wanted to see the world burn. In all the time since, it hasn’t occurred to the old man that maybe, just maybe, it was someone who didn’t want the tribal leaders bribed. Possibly someone from one of those tribes wary of having his leader sold to the government for a few precious stones? Perhaps someone from the government who thinks this is not the best way to reach out to the people?

Bruce Wayne also sees no problem with Alfred’s diagnosis of the problem. Of course, it would’ve been perfectly understandable if the thief had been selling them on – someone stealing to get richer is a normal human being. But a man unswayed by money is very obviously a mad-man who only wants to see the world burn! So what happens next? Alfred and co. burn down the entire forest to get the thief!

Wow. I don’t mean to berate Batman and Alfred, after all, they made one hell of a movie, but with reasoning skills like this, I can’t help but feel that Gotham City dodged a bullet having them both leave. After all, the next time someone did something where they couldn’t immediately fathom the motive, like I don’t know, trying to prevent bribery in the city by stealing the bribe money and giving it to charity, these two may well have nuked Gotham!

Paying For The News

Much has been made about the impact of Bradley Manning’s Wikileaks and the implications of its revelations for governments, diplomats and armies around the world. The release of several documents and videos exposing the stark contrast between the private and public functioning of institutions has been a deeply embarrassing affair for all involved. However, the one faction that has perhaps been most damningly indicted by the expose and its aftermath is the news media.

Essentially, it showed that in both Afghanistan and Iraq, journalists had been caught napping, and had been unable to get their hands on even a fraction of what Wikileaks was able to expose. The fact that the new records showed 15000 previously unreported civilians deaths in Iraq should have come as an embarrassment to the news media. It means 15000 civilian deaths escaped the collective notice of their dedicated newshounds covering the war in Iraq. This further suggests that either the news media is pathetically ill-equipped to do its job of acting as a watchdog, or is not as fiercely independent as one may like to think.

Allow me, now, to take a bit of a leap and suggest that major news corporations are not independent. I might come into conflict with a few, but I think most people agree that even the most seemingly balanced of news corporations are, at some level, engaging in a certain level of propaganda. They act as mouthpieces to voice a certain viewpoint, and are less than generous in airing conflicting viewpoints.

These viewpoints may be guided by ideology, nationalism or perceived social welfare. But one major reason a news outlet may choose to spin its news is quite simply financial. Specifically, news channels are, at least to some extent, beholden to whoever is paying them. This threat to the independence of the news is a complex problem and has been around for a long time.

In the book Compulsive Viewing, about his life in Australian television, Gerald Stone marks the 16th of August 1974 as the day of independence for Australian television news. This day became notorious for something that didn’t happen, rather than what did.

A joint committee of the Australian senate had tabled a report which accused soap producing giants Colgate-Palmolive and Unilever of misleading advertising as well as using their collective eighty per cent market share to maintain profits at an unreasonably high level, and recommended that they cut back both their claims and their profits. All three of the major commercial television channels in Sydney failed to report this. Two days later, a program called Media Watch on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation called them all out on this, suggesting that television executives had leaned on their newsrooms to steer clear of the story in order not to offend their sponsors. These accusations resulted in an inquiry by the Australian Broadcast Control Board which gave birth to what he calls the ‘journalistic magna carta’. Essentially, the board threatened to revoke the licenses of any news channels found guilty of suppressing news. The result was the emancipation of the newsroom from executive financial interests. Obviously, the act could never be objectively complete, but the precedent was set.

This brings us home, to the fast-burgeoning and now rampant news media in Pakistan. From the obvious rating-chasing, sensationalist, caution to the wind attitude of our news outlets, it is fairly apparent that these channels have little to fear in the way of government regulation. Quite apart from stories of journalists being up for sale, and the general rumours of corruption that surround almost all facets of our lives – the Mubashir Luqmans and Mehr Bokharis, the Aamir Liaqats and so on, who seem to emerge from each scandal unabashed and unscathed, there is another angle that needs close examination. The Mubashir Luqman/Malik Riaz incident was a glaring example of a businessman using the news media to further a personal agenda. It was highly publicised and vociferously condemned on all channels (well, almost) as being against all journalistic ethics.

However, more recently a much more alarming accusation has been made against the Pakistani media by Usman Peerzada. The by now famous falling out between the Rafi Peer group and USAID consisted of USAID publicly accusing the Rafi Peer group of financial mismanagement and cancelling their association with the group over the production of a local version of Sesame Street. Obviously, it is not possible to comment on the veracity of these allegations, but the ensuing counter-allegation made by Usman Peerzada is that their side of the story was quashed because several news channels are heavily reliant on USAID for funding and could not afford to go against them. He points to the failure of any news channel to air three separate press-conferences held in three different cities, and attended by representatives from these channels.

This is no small accusation. It suggests that local political and commercial interests are not the only ones controlling the media, and consequently influencing public opinion – foreign governments are at it as well, and are perhaps more adept at doing so than anyone else.

While Peerzada’s accusation is serious, it is not entirely shocking. First Geo, and now Express News have been happily giving Voice of America time on their channels for years now. The fact that Voice of America is the mouthpiece of the US government and is cited in the Wikipedia article on Psychological Operations by the United States as an example of White PSYOPS (which is factual and official and meant for foreign audiences only) is not too troublesome. Most of the content of this programming has been generally harmless, but what are the sums of money involved in the deal, and what influence does it allow them to yield at these places?

There have long been reports of the US government flooding money into Pakistani media outlets, such as the clip from Russia Today that’s being doing the rounds declaring Obama’s 50 million dollar “PR move”. This was followed by news that journalists at Express and Dunya News were drawing salaries from a Non-Profit organisation that in turn received funding from the State Department. When this story was highlighted, and their failure to disclose questioned, officials on both sides downplayed the oversight.

Incidentally, the US is quite obviously not the only one who has some interest in getting a foothold into Pakistani media. Radio Pakistan also has a number of hours dedicated to Chinese broadcasts.

Recently, of course, perhaps unsatisfied by their success with the media so far, or simply to fortify it, USAID has stepped up their ad campaign. It started with a somewhat disappointing photo exhibition that toured the country. I had hoped to find someone to explain their work, or at least some literature about USAID, instead it was photographs of various institutions in Pakistan they had helped out, without much detail. Everything that was already up on their website in slide show form as an ad for the exhibition!

The most recent step of course is the ‘Roshan Pakistan’ ad campaign that nobody in Pakistan can escape. It’s on news websites and the ads on television showing the very common sight of Americans sitting at roadside hotels watching cricket matches with the locals!

According to the USAID website, “U.S. foreign assistance has always had the twofold purpose of furthering America's interests while improving lives in the developing world. USAID carries out U.S. foreign policy by promoting broad-scale human progress at the same time it expands stable, free societies, creates markets and trade partners for the United States, and fosters good will abroad.”

-A useful and, no doubt, noble marriage of purposes. But it is not necessary that both will always go hand in hand. On occasion, the objectives of US foreign policy and the interests of the Pakistani people will diverge, and it is at these points that a strong US influence on Pakistani media outlets may prove to be most troublesome for the Pakistani government and its institutions. Similar is the case for other foreign involvement in local news media.

Of course, it could all be a drop in the ocean. One of the reasons Gerald Stone cites for greater independence in the newsroom in recent times is the greater availability of sponsorships. If one sponsor threatens to pull funding, they can always move to another. It may be the case that this is the situation in Pakistan too, that USAID funding of news media is not significant enough for it to wield influence. In any case, Peerzada’s accusations warrant at least an investigation into the sources of funding for all major new organisations as well as the structure of their relationship with their donors.

Free-Market Democracy

A very interesting episode of the PTV classic Alif Noon surfaces ever so often on Facebook and elsewhere whenever there is a sugar crisis. In it, during a period of rationing, a dealer in sugar employs Allan and Nanna to buy up all supplies from the market to artificially drive up prices. They are part of a large force that purchases large quantities of sugar and then resells it for a higher price in the black-market. All is going well until Nanna accidentally tries to sell sugar to an undercover government agent who subsequently arrests the dealer. Allan is furious at his friend’s incompetence. Nanna, on the other hand, is ecstatic that he has helped arrest a criminal, and happily says to Allan, “Kuchh naiki ke kaam aise hote hein jo khud bakhud ho jaate hein, humein pata bhi nahi chalta ke hum naiki ke kaam kar rahe hein” (There are some good deeds that happen all by themselves and we don’t even realise we are doing them) to which an apoplectic Allan drily replies “Naiki ke kaamon ko bhi nahi pata chalta ke unn ke saath kya ho raha hai” (The good deeds themselves don’t know what’s being done to them).

Recently, I find that the reasoning in a lot of articles on politics seems to be following a similar principle. ‘Yes, politicians are corrupt, yes, they are selfish, and yes, they are dishonest, but allowing them to pursue their selfish and dishonest practices unfettered will result in the betterment of all’. Naiki ke kaam khudh bakhud ho jaaenge! The reason for this belief is an absolute unwavering faith in the system. The system of democracy is believed to be such that individual intentions and actions are rendered irrelevant. The state, society, its intellectuals and institutions need not worry about questioning politicians for malpractice as the electorate will automatically weed out any elements harmful to its interest. Awam ki adaalat! (The court of the people!)

As far as I can tell, this is uber-capitalism! ‘Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone’ according to John Maynard Keynes. That seems eerily close to the reasoning I’m talking about.

Of course, capitalism here refers to capitalism in the goods or money market, not in government itself. Proponents of the free market have long argued that the role and power of government should be limited to ensuring law and order. Consequently, they argue that there should be no regulation in any fields, including health or education, as any intervention results in the distortion of the free market and subsequently a sub-optimal solution. They also argue that government intervention is paternalistic and a curb of individual freedoms that will inevitably lead to the formation either of a nanny state, or an out and out tyranny. On the other hand, without government intervention or a centralised structure to regulate markets, an ‘invisible hand’ will automatically guide society towards prosperity.

The phenomenon I am trying to highlight regards the free-market nature of the political process in Pakistan. Essentially, in an effort to move away from the authoritarian rule of the past, there seems to be a concerted effort to move towards a system where the only check is the electoral process. The role of government is being removed from the pedestal of public service and brought down to a purely transactional affair. With a growing acceptance that politics is a profession devoid of scruples, the need for regulating the political process is rapidly being rendered redundant. The resultant system is one where the electorate are the consumers and politicians unapologetically pursue self-interest.

Unfortunately, the nature of the political market is such that it will most likely lead to an oligopoly and the subsequent exploitation of the consumer. There is a limited number of parties, very high barriers to entry, and with our levels of literacy, there certainly isn’t perfect information. Hopes of perfect competition are a long-shot to say the least.

The support of certain unscrupulous politicians for such a system is obviously understandable, but the growing acceptance and adoption of such views by opinion formers is more worrying. The check on individual self-interest damaging society is exercised by the society itself through the various media and through the education system. They make sure the devil is not given his due, but instead only surrender it begrudgingly when there is no alternative. This is the bulwark against the degeneration of the society into a Darwinian jungle.

Unfortunately, this bulwark is being steadily eroded in Pakistan as a reaction to years of deceptive authoritarian rules, with devastating consequences to society. Concepts such as selflessness, integrity or principle are slowing being labelled as archaic ideas that need to be supplanted by cold, calculating rationality without understanding the vital functional role each plays in a healthy society. After each new scandal, a section of the media talks about how there are no principles in politics, about how corruption is prevalent across the globe. What they seem to not notice is that while corruption scandals erupt in the first world as well, respectable journalists or intellectuals could never dream of going on television and telling the public that it was all part of the game!

This new rationality that considers sacrificing personal interest for societal benefit to be irrational is what is slowly but surely leading us to a combative naturally-selective society. If there are no principles in politics, then why should there be any principles in any other field? Why should the next COAS not march into the presidency when the opportunity presents itself? The constitution is a man-made document that is up for editing at any time. The best designed system can be corrupted and manipulated to the point of ineffectiveness unless it is backed by ideology or principle.

Lord knows our education system does little to inculcate civic sense or the principles of collective living, now these values are actively under attack. The result is the cultivation of a society where individual interests trump societal interests, and consequently power is more respected than principle. Bear in mind that natural selection does the exact opposite of what a modern society is supposed to - it kills off the most weak and vulnerable. 

Man dies from lack of lunch at MM Alam Road

A man in Lahore died yesterday when he was unable to have lunch at any of Lahore’s famous restaurants because it was closed due to Ramazan. The victim suffered from a rare but rapidly spreading disease which required him to have lunch at a restaurant at least once every week.

There was outrage at the death among other sufferers of such diseases over the incident along with a protest march against the closing of restaurants during the holy month. The government also came under severe criticism over its seemingly callous suggestion that sufferers could possibly eat at home or buy something to eat from a shop.

“Once again, it shows how out of touch this government is with the problems of the common man,” said one protester, “how can buying a box of biscuits and eating it possibly be the same as having lunch in a restaurant? These people are totally clueless.”

The issue soon exploded on the social media with one angry protester tweeting, “We live in such a barbaric land. I just can’t tolerate these intolerant mullahs.”

It's really late...

A few weeks ago, we all breathed a sigh of relief as our President returned to the country safe and sound after a health scare that had everyone worried. That you are now wondering whether that sentence was serious or sarcastic highlights the conundrum that faces us all today. The government that symbolized the much celebrated return to democracy (again) is in trouble; if the various news media are to be trusted (which they seldom are), deep trouble! 

It appears the establishment (if there is such a thing), has had enough of the government’s shenanigans and is now looking for a way to do away with them. One lesson that has recently been drilled into our heads is that this would not be a good thing. Indeed, the establishment’s track record in running the country does not inspire much confidence in their decision-making.

So we should try to stop them? We have recently become much more hands on in our politics. Protests, dharnas, and whatnot are all the rage as more and more Pakistanis are beginning to realize that the affairs of the state affect us all too directly to be left to fate. Ideally, we should all get together and hold a grand rally that sends a clear signal to these establishment goons that their strong arm tactics are not going to work and we will not stand for any meddling with our democratic government.

But there’s a snag. Going into the streets to protest against a supposedly all-powerful institution sounds mildly dangerous, am I absolutely sure I want to take this risk for the love of Messrs Zardari and Gillani? Or even for the sanctity of the Bhutto name? Protecting our democracy is all well and good, but when push comes to shove, will I be ready to bear the pushing and shoving for a government that is practically synonymous with corruption and incompetence? A government that has, by virtue of selecting people like Sharmila Farooqi and Fauzia Wahab as their spokespersons, essentially shown their utter contempt for my opinion of them? The appointment of Rehman Malik just seemed like a conscious decision to antagonise us! I could go on, as is my habit to do so, but as we all know the basic charges, I will spare you all.
Going even further, there is another problem. Suppose I was to overlook what the government's performance and take a stand on principle. The problem now is, whatever case the establishment is to choose to rid itself of the government is likely to be fairly solid. In my heart of hearts, I will know that whatever charge has been brought against the government (corruption or treason or whatever else they are able to come up with) is probably true! So how am I supposed to take a principled stance in defence of democracy, by taking up the defence of somebody I believe to be guilty? 

The answer is of course, no, if the establishment finally does topple the government, I will not be rushing to provide my services as human shield. Far from it, in fact. In my opinion, any such action would just set a bad precedent.

People seem to think the establishment always had a problem with Zardari and the PPP. I disagree. As far as I can tell, the establishment couldn’t have asked for a better arrangement. The evidently inept government acts as the perfect lightning rod while the establishment goes about its business unfettered. Of course, Zardari and his government overstepped their bounds when they tried to come between the army and the US, and now the army will simply “do the needful” and either tighten their leash or send them packing. As much as the PPP shout and scream, it’s actually too late. There will be little fuss because, as snazzy as the slogan may be, that the absolute worst democracy is better than a dictatorship just doesn’t seem to be holding up as a tautology.

If the democratic process is ever to take root in this country it cannot simply be because it tries to sell itself as a lesser of two evils. Nor can it rely solely on catchphrases and supposed universal truths. It has to deliver. Democratic governments can only take on the establishment if they have the popular support to balance the strength of the deeply entrenched institutions. It requires loyalty from common citizens, not just party activists or other party alliances. In my opinion, even the common suggestion that political parties need to stick together against military rule is not really worth much if the populace is not actively supporting them.

At the very least, they need to be seen to be trying! What amuses me most is the fact that the army as an institution has always been much more image conscious than the politicians. It’s probably true that they have much more efficient PR techniques at their disposal in order to achieve this. However, the politicians need to accept that they are handicapped in this regard and that they operate on a much slimmer margin for error.  They need to start compensating, not by trying to increase this margin, but by trying to reduce their error.

A lot has been made recently on television by PPP politicians of the fact that people are willing to tolerate military dictators for a decade, but cannot put up with politicians for much smaller tenures. That is when I wonder if they are trying to be funny. Does it not occur to them that military dictators are not personally related to the entire country, but are tolerated either because it takes them much longer to inflict the damage caused by politicians in a much smaller span, or because it takes much longer for their blunders to be discovered. In either case, this fact does not reflect well on the PPP government!

Imran Khan did not criticize the Army – because he’s not completely insane

A week has passed since PTI’s supporters flooded Minar-e-Pakistan in Lahore, but the critics are still going strong in their onslaught against Imran Khan. For a whole day after the jalsa the English dailys relented in their attacks on Khan, and congratulated him on proving that his party was as capable of amassing physical supporters as virtual ones. Since that day, however, his detractors seem to have redoubled their efforts to denounce him.

Of course, the traditional criticism of having only Facebook supporters having lost its teeth, others are being repeated with increased zeal. I’ll try to analyse some of these. The first one that was doing the rounds before the Lahore jalsa is that Imran Khan is in cahoots with the establishment. The fact that he did not bring up the issue of the military during his speech is being touted as absolute confirmation of this.  The fact of the matter is that Imran Khan stands a slim chance as it is. He is already punching well above his weight in taking on the PMLN in Punjab and the other major parties elsewhere. What people need to realize is that the military establishment is a force that even the great Zulfiqar Bhutto was unable to tame. The only way to bring the establishment under check is to have a political government that is has such strong populist roots that it cannot be cowed into submission. For this to happen the politicians involved need to have unimpeachable records – an art they have been unable to master. Simply put, the only civilian government that can take on the establishment is one that can call on the people to defend it. A corrupt, inept government has no hope of doing so.  An as yet unelected force that is already in no shortage of enemies would have to be suicidal or insane to start railing against this force at a mass rally during election time. The most anyone can practically hope for from the PTI is an acknowledgement of this problem; an acknowledgement that is forthcoming both in Imran Khan’s book and in several interviews.  Incidentally, it is spectacularly amusing to see political parties also raising this concern since all of them have their roots in the military establishment as well - PPP, PMLN and MQM all have their roots in patronage from one military government or the other.

Furthermore, the military establishment itself is an odd creature. Through the 50s, right up to the 90s, it was criticized for being a puppet in the hands of the United States. It was accused of exercising absolute control over its indigenous population while minting money as a mercenary force for the US. Throughout Pakistan’s history, the army has always been much closer to the US than any civilian government could ever hope to be (Of course, this doesn’t mean that the civilian governments weren’t falling over themselves to prove their loyalty to the US, it just means they never succeeded in making themselves indispensible).  These days, the image of the establishment is very different. It is seen as an ultra-nationalist, pan-Islamic, anti- American force that wants to take over the world. In essence, it is seen to be intent on fighting an ideological war. Of course, the actions of the Musharraf regime were in direct conflict to these assertions. The Musharraf regime was exercising the traditional pre-Islamization role of the establishment in fighting the US’s wars in exchange for money, at the same time silencing detractors. At that point in time, Imran Khan was the only one to call his government on this issue, and he still hasn’t changed his stance.

A trivial issue raised against Khan is whether he will be able to translate his showing in Lahore into actual votes. If he can get them to come to Minar-e-Pakistan, he can get them to the polling booth. I really cannot fathom how this could even be raised as a serious issue. There was a mad rush during the time of the rally to get votes registered, and it appears pretty obvious to me that the next election may have one of the highest turnouts in history. Or am I missing something?

The more serious charges against Khan are made by sullen-faced stalwarts of the PMLN. Khan has not established a set policy as to how he is going to go about making the changes he promises. One must confess that this is the most troubling aspect of PTI’s campaign and one hopes they will sort this out sooner rather than later. The oft-repeated argument here is that problems of corruption are not as simple as PTI makes them out to be. It is not good enough that he wants to make a difference. The answer, of course, is no it isn’t. But it is the absolute minimum requirement. Surely a government that has no intention of rectifying the system is worse than one without a readily available plan. I think it is high time that the Pakistani public stopped trying to get the system to work in spite of bad governance and, for once, faced the menace head on. It’s really high time we started demanding more from our politicians in terms of honesty. In this regard, at his worse, Khan can set the bar at an absolute zero for future politicians.

Another charge against Imran Khan is that he is making compromises that will ensure that he is unable to deliver on his promises. The main line of argument here is that he is inducting too much of the old guard to be able to bring about a change. I can only assume that anyone who makes this assertion is going to be voting for the PTI anyway, as they already see the entire old guard as corrupt and inept – at least with Khan, they will be under new management. At the same time it is interesting to note that Khan is accused of not having any experienced politicians in his party. A catch 22 situation if there ever was one. What the PTI is faced with is the problem of trying to remain clean while performing in a political system riddled with corruption. This is more the fault of our system than the PTI. Nobody should be under any illusions; Khan will have to compromise at some level if he is to have any hope of coming to power. The question is, how much? Will the compromise turn the PTI into another PPP or will Khan be able to keep a check on his rank and file? It is a mammoth task, but one definitely worth undertaking. Many Pakistanis have given up hope of ever seeing a prosperous country. The mass exodus out of the country is testament to this, so it doesn’t take a genius to predict that the odds are phenomenally against Imran Khan. But the PTI has injected new life into the political system and captured the imagination of young people. One can only hope that Khan can amass a backing that ensures his subordinates are unable to overwhelm him.

One great thing about the demonstration of PTI’s popularity is that it has jolted the incumbent parties. The PMLN, being challenged only by the spectacularly maligned PPP, had fallen into a stupor, but the fact that the PTI is now nibbling at their heels means that they have jumped into action. Suddenly they are falling over themselves to clarify their financial accounts and demonstrate the good governance they had once been so proud of. By making such an issue out of corruption, the PTI has put immense pressure on urban parties such as the PMLN to avoid tainted politicians.

Finally, the one stance of Imran Khan that seems to ruffle the most feathers among the writers of English blogs – the Taliban. I will not even bother to clarify the fact that he does not in fact condone terrorism. If you don’t know that already, anything I will say will be a waste of time. But let me start with a sentence I just read in an article on Pakistan Today: “Is playing music all that is required to prove your ‘liberal’ ‘leftist’ credentials?” A good question, to which my answer would be yes, it would appear so, because the people who profess to being part of the liberal, leftist cadre in our society seem to be exactly that shallow. These labels seem to have no meaning at all except that they want to be allowed to have a good time. These people don’t stand for social welfare, they don’t stand for social equality, they don’t seem to be asking for alleviation of income disparity or protesting the damaging effects of globalization, or even protecting the environment. They have no qualms with violations of international law or human rights. If anything, they seem to be spectacularly trigger-happy for people who claim to be progressive thinkers. Their first instinct at any issue is to go to war. They seem to think that the rest of the country can be pummeled into liberal, leftist thought (whatever that means in this day and age). This is their equivalent of spreading democracy around the world.

We need to accept the fact that the Taliban are a not just a product of religious brain-washing, but also a reaction to decades of disenfranchisement. The country has let, and is continuing to let its most vulnerable citizens down. The solution cannot be to go on an all-out war against the population we have spurned. The way out is to try and rehabilitate the people we have antagonized to this degree. They need to be weaned away from the most extreme religious views. This is not an immediate solution – it will take decades. But it has to be tried, and tried again, unless we want to get sucked into an all-out civil war. We need to remember that all governments have a penchant for painting all opposition as intransigent. It is a trick they seem to have picked up from the Americans. Remember the godless communists and the Muslim extremists? In Pakistan we too had the treacherous Bengalis who wanted to break the country. We took up a military operation against them and look how well that turned out. Or the Balochis, they too were insurgents bent upon breaking up the country. We bombed them, and invited others to do the same, now we’re picking up the pieces.

Incidentally, it never occurred to anyone to start a military operation against the Taliban until 9/11. Even then, it was done out of fear of the US reprisal rather than because they were an immediate threat to us. We saw the US and the Taliban, and decided we could take on the Taliban much more easily than the US and went for it. The fault of the Taliban is that they didn’t die out. Let’s not delude ourselves into thinking that we were fighting some war for the security of the whole world. Sitting in Lahore, I confess I may have a simplistic view of things. But with the limited information coming out of the affected regions, it is difficult to get an unbiased view. I do suspect, however, that the PTI’s performance in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa would be a good indicator to how accurate they are on their problem assessment.

To close, I will confess I am cautious in my support of the PTI, but I like to believe its on the right track. I realize Imran Khan’s claims are idealistic. But I fail to see how having an honest idealist will not have a positive effect on the governance of the country.  If it does not manage to eradicate the menace of corruption in our country, it would at least attempt to curb it to manageable levels. It would restore the lost confidence in the government systems, which is in itself a cause for much of our woes.

Of course, Imran Khan could turn out to be a complete scam; a power-monger or a closet Mr. Ten Percent. I have no crystal ball to check whether he goes home after his rallies and practices his evil laugh. Conversely, he could be too much of an idealist and step on too many toes all at once, because let’s face it nobody in our power structure wants a truly incorruptible leader. Not the army with its fingers in so many pies, not the industrialists who are dodging their taxes, not the feudal lord, not the patwaris and thaanedaars he openly denounced in Lahore, not even the media that is getting its funding from so many different vested interests. If Imran Khan tried to be as revolutionary as he says he is, he probably wouldn’t make it to the assembly alive.

Where self-centered pragmatism has failed us so many times, perhaps it’s time for a bit of selfless idealism. There is one aspect of the PTI’s campaign that really bothers me though. Imran Khan is not the last hope for Pakistan. I will support him, and if he fails, I will try again!

The Doctor is in (and likely to stay)

So, after everyone else has taken their shots at Dr. Saab, it’s time I register my take on the whole affair. I’m assuming, by now, everyone has seen the offending video clip (despite GEO’s efforts to get it pulled from youtube), as well as Dr.Saab’s ensuing jawab-e-shikwa, and have been anxiously awaiting my comments on them. You have, don't deny it! Anybody who thinks Aamir Liaquat’s explanation is the entire truth should stop here, as the follows assumes the opposite.

To start off, was it really that wrong for Aamir Liaquat to be caught swearing, and acting less than charitable while off air? Well, in short, yes! It was exactly that wrong, maybe even more. A very telling sign of this is his subsequent explanation. Had his actions been acceptable, or even only mildly unacceptable, there would have been no need for such a wildly outrageous explanation. He could have apologised, or simply ignored the issue, as he has been steadfastly doing regarding his dubious doctorate for the past many years (fake degrees, as we all know, are only a minor sin). Instead, he dug himself into a deeper hole by stating that the tongue that mentions the name of the Prophet could never engage in vulgarity. So, in his own words, such behaviour would be intolerable and render him unsuited to fulfilling his role on television.

This is both his prerogative and his necessity. The fact of the matter is that the wholesome, unimpeachably pious persona is what he was selling. He could not, under any circumstances, allow this image to be tarnished.

And this is where more culprits need to be drawn into the dock. Aamir Liaquat Hussain is not just a personality engaged in imparting Islam. He is a carefully cultivated, and most importantly, highly lucrative product. Not only does he earn his television channels obscene amounts of money, he is also the face of many an advertising campaign. So, maintaining the false façade of Aamir Liaquat is in the interest of many a powerful group. I’m not sure about his current political standing, but there was definitely a time when these groups also featured a prominent political party.

This brings us to the responsibilities of all of these groups. Since we’ve established that his behaviour was intolerable for someone carrying out his responsibilities, was it not the job of his producers or channel executives to distance themselves from him? Since most of the clips are from Geo, shouldn’t they be held responsible for housing and promoting a charlatan? And what of his ad endorsements? Will advertisers and companies try to pull him from their campaigns?

Of course, I’m living in a dream world when I say these things; in a world where profitability is not the measure of morality. More likely, everyone will look to quietly gloss over this little blip. We’ve all had our laughs, and now it’s back to work, making money selling piety. The only way anybody is going to pull away from Aamir Liaquat after this is if he becomes a financial liability. But since our opinions are mostly decided by these very media groups I suspect there's little danger of that happening and it would just be cheaper to pretend nothing happened.

At the same time, I do suspect one aspect of Aamir Liaquat’s explanation rings true. I have a feeling his accusation that Geo intentionally leaked the video to damage his reputation is not entirely outlandish. After all, they had lost a cash cow to the opposition, why not try to dent their investment? They pulled the video from youtube just a fraction too late. It had gone viral.

On the other hand, if this was the act of a rogue Geo employee with access to the tapes, will Geo be naming him and acting against him for violation of copyright? I suspect not!

Come to think of it, I guess it’s about as likely as Aamir Liquat taking legal action against Geo for “dubbing and imitating him” for the purposes of defamation.