Daily Times

Political temperatures seldom fall in this beloved democracy of ours and when the happenings before the public eye fail to convulse masses, a bite into the forbidden fruit does the trick, quite magnificently. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Finance Minister Taimur Jhagra had already landed in the eye of the storm over what some may call a very strategic “reneg(ing)” of budgetary commitments.

However, the leaked audio of an alleged conversation between PTI Senator Shaukat Tarin and Punjab Finance Minister Mohsin Leghari wherein the senior of the lot was heard lighting the path to a similar falling back on the promise to run a budgetary surplus has stirred the pot to the point of no return. Another recording revealed Mr Tarin asking Mr Jhagra whether he had followed up on his “advice” (as defended by PTI’s Asad Umar). While the party was quick to jump to justifications, they, too, have added their own share of controversy by denying the “anti-state” portion of the audio.

First and foremost remains the need for the state to call in a neutral authentication of the clip by a reliable body to quash any reservations raised by any of the involved parties (Mr Leghari’s possible denial, for instance). If proven to be undoctored, the reprehensible commentary that could easily torpedo a much-needed IMF deal at such a crucial juncture to appease something as trivial as personal egos should be immediately brought before the eyes of the law.

No one should be allowed to play havoc with matters of national importance in the name of tit-for-tat political agendas. But borrowing the words of Eleanor Roosevelt, “Justice cannot be for one side alone, but must be for both.” The state also needs to answer a set of discomforting questions regarding the logistics of recording a conversation between two individuals in a private setting. It is high time we come to terms with what grotesque infringement of the right to privacy (chadar aur char deewari) the act of tapping phones poses, especially in a functional democracy. Such controversial is the practice of eavesdropping that the honourable Supreme Court dismissed it in a case against the Benazir Bhutto government as far back as 1997.

Quite ahead of courts in developed countries, which now reject the submission of such evidence unless and until both participants have given their consent, the bench had back then upheld this as an application of Article 9 of our constitution (right to life). The ruling coalition would not only be a part of something revolutionary by not pandering to the old one-upping rhetoric but also save themselves from getting exploited by these wild issuances. *