Pakistanis and Indians saw the recent goodwill visit of our foreign minister as a success — generally. But a TV anchorperson in Pakistan got carried away. Some years ago, male chauvinists got after Ms Nilofar Bakhtiar in the same way. It seems to be Ms Khar’s turn now. Is this a continuity of criticising efforts in building foreign relations or undermining women working on important assignments? It was hard to believe the way a known anchorperson, Dr Danish did everything possible to find fault with Ms Khar and prompted his programme participants to follow his thinking although Mr Mujeebur Rehman Shami, a very senior journalist and a sombre person also, did not oblige. Dr Danish has been conducting his programme for some years. He is loud, and sometimes waves papers in his hand at the audience to convince them that he has some sort of documentary evidence. Who knows? In the case of Foreign Minister Ms Khar, he got carried away and repeatedly recalled that she represented the ‘Islamic Republic of Pakistan’. What does this mean? Was he trying to say that the Islamic Republic of Pakistan forbids women to take positions of responsibility? Was he trying to appeal to and activate an extremist ‘right’ lobby? Does he believe in male superiority? Incidentally, the concept of male superiority comes from the Aryans. It is not Islamic. Our religion teaches respect for women. Ms Khar is a well-educated, well-groomed and politically experienced person. She conducted herself with grace and received a good response from Indian diplomats. So what if Kashmir was not mentioned in the talks? What have those who have mentioned Kashmir again and again ever achieved? She was more successful in the sense that her Indian counterpart mentioned Kashmir and agreed with Pakistan’s proposal. In my experience, I have found Ms Khar to be very businesslike and efficient. Maybe she is a little too businesslike but that is an asset in a ‘man’s world’. She also has administrative know-how, which is why Mr Mujeebur Rehman Shami acknowledged her experience at the ministerial level. No fault could be found in her personal conduct. She dressed elegantly and also kept her head covered with a dupatta. Mr Shami found only the handshake with the Indian minister unusual because women politicians in Pakistan avoid shaking hands with men. So what? A handshake is no flirtation. It is a gesture of goodwill. Women politicians avoid even normal courtesies because men have scared them. It is the macho man who makes it hard to respect a woman in a position of authority. Such men see women as objects required for procreation only. Also what is this hullabaloo over the cost of the apparel and accessories? Have a heart, how do you know the prices? Mr Shami rightly refused to venture a guess. It is irrelevant if the ‘state’ did not buy the dresses and accessories. In the present cabinet, Ms Khar is one of the few well groomed, educated and competent individuals. Irrespective of anyone’s political alliances, we must learn to be fair. It is maturity that is needed, not just grey hair. This attitude towards women needs to be seriously examined. More loose talk is carried on about women than men, particularly working women. Jokes about wives are always present. All this speaks of an unhealthy state of mind. Particularly, an anchorperson must bear the social responsibility of maintaining a balance. It would be fine if a person’s work output were examined objectively but targeting the individuality of a person is totally unfair. I hope that these comments are taken in good spirit and some introspection is done. It is a laudable attitude to look at one’s own shortcomings and shed prejudices. Was Dr Danish pressurised by some lobby? He generally conducts his programme efficiently. I hope Ms Khar has the strength to brush aside negative comments. The Indian lobbies did not sabotage the talks this time. Historically, Indian extremists have been sabotaging these talks by acts of terror. A Samjhota train-like blast or the Mumbai issue were not used this time to block steps towards peace. Some concrete and positive measures have been agreed upon. These include improved trade facilities and people to people contact by reviewing visa regimes. We do need to support the just cause of Kashmir but our foreign policy cannot be so highly Kashmir-centric that it becomes a hostage. India and Pakistan must live as neighbours who respect each other and work for the welfare of their people. There are challenges for both countries, and perhaps more so for Pakistan. This is the time when a serious review of our foreign policy should be made. Our traditional ally, the US, has been unhappy about some issues. Pakistan, too, has some reservations. The US’s popularity in the masses is at its lowest and it is unfair because a lot of good is also being done by the support of the American people. Our relations with Iran, China, Afghanistan and other neighbouring countries are important and must be seen in correct perspective. Foreign relations are closely tied to economic strategy. Ms Khar has that background and hopefully she should be able to make a significant contribution. Generally, it is a strange thing that the media gets after our foreign ministers. The former foreign minister was not spared either and the media enjoyed insinuating his intentions during his visit to the US. The foreign office has, indeed, a very serious responsibility towards the country. It needs support to improve our image. Their work is made hard when we, the people of Pakistan, belittle them or treat them as show persons. Mr Shami correctly said that we should not expect our foreign ministers to be dressed poorly. The key word is ‘decently’ not ‘extravagantly’. Let us all try to create a good environment for the women and men who are contributing towards national well being and avoid pulling their legs. The writer is a culture and media management specialist, a researcher, author, director and actor