Daily Times

I deem it imperative to comment on some social and political issues that not only haunt me but haunt the people in general, drifting them into the waters of confusion. Most of our political analysts are biased and project their party stance. When we see a sectarian cleric on any TV channel, before listening to him we know what he has to prove. Our TV anchorpersons also have tilts towards some political parties. Their basic duty is to question the panellists and then neutrally listen to them. Unfortunately, some of them do not pose questions to the panellists but impose their own opinions on them, which are highly unwanted. The other thing that baffles viewers of the TV shows is the rude and nasty behaviour of some panellists: they yell at each other, they do not argue, they do not discuss; they disgrace and deride each other, which shows their political intolerance and immaturity. The nation is already bruised by the arrows of the religious hardliners and aspires to see a moderate culture but the political dummies have aggravated the situation. We need rational and moderate clerics and politicians to steer the skiff out of the tempests. The agencies must avoid a political disaster by making and breaking the system. Let the democratic process continue so that we may achieve our cherished goals of educated, honest, patriotic and able leadership. There are a few issues that need a neutral and rational approach:

(a) Politics of reconciliation: it was a great dream of Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto and Mian Nawaz Sharif to democratise society and introduce the politics of reconciliation. They had learnt a lesson after shudders and shocks. Earlier, they acted like political enemies and harmed each other. But the strokes of martial laws had straightened them out. The Charter of Democracy (CoD) agreed upon in London was the best organ to stop military intervention. Unfortunately, it flopped. Who is to be blamed for that, let history decide. Presently, the stakeholders have concocted fishy stories to hoodwink the masses. Once again the politics of vindictiveness has started. The alliance of the PML-Q with the PPP was the need of both the parties. For their survival, they had to unite. Chaudhry Pervaiz Elahi, one of the nominated murderers of Ms Benazir Bhutto by her in her lifetime, became a senior minister in the cabinet of the government of the PPP. The people ask: is this the politics of reconciliation or the politics of convenience? The zealots of the PPP maintain that Mian Nawaz Sharif is responsible for the drifting of the PPP towards the politics of convenience. The votaries of the PML-N have their own arguments. The blame game is rampant and mudslinging has marred democratic rule. The PPP workers say that they have shown latitude and in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa they have a coalition government with the ANP, in Sindh with the MQM. Here it must be mentioned that the present government of the PPP has avoided political vilification and vindication. There is not a single political prisoner in the jails of Pakistan. This much credit must be given to the PPP.

(b) Nawaz Sharif and the Memogate scandal: it is a very serious issue or has been made a serious issue, which will be decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The Parliamentary Committee headed by Senator Raza Rabbani will also announce its findings. Till that time we must avoid speculations and conjectures. The former ambassador of Pakistan in the US, Mr Husain Haqqani, and the complainant, Mansoor Ijaz, have submitted their statements. But the PPP workers ask Mian Nawaz Sharif that when he asked Bill Clinton, then the US president, to interfere and stop General Pervez Musharraf from his unconstitutional activities, was that treason? Political thinkers are of the opinion that when a person manoeuvres with an enemy country to harm his country or gets money and passes on state secrets, it is tantamount to treason. Suppose, if some Pakistani collaborates with the Indian government to damage the interests of Pakistan, it is treason. We have never declared the US as our enemy country. Since the very creation of Pakistan in 1947, we have been in the American lobby. Our first Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan visited the US and sought help and protection against the Indian assault and hegemony. The US supported us on the Kashmir issue. We get American aid for our military and civil needs. We are on the same page as far as the policy of counter-terrorism is concerned. Unfortunately, now we have some differences on the Afghanistan issue. But these strategic differences can be overcome by dialogue. Let us bridge the gap by reconciliation and not give anyone a chance to exploit the situation.

The writer is an author, poet, scholar and politician based in New York. He can be reached at maqsoodjafri@aol.com