The Death of Dialogue in Pakistan

( This article, published at Daily Times Pakistan on April 6, 2014, examines the state of freedom of expression and speech in Pakistan. )

The Death of Dialogue in Pakistan

Written by Qasir M. Chaudhry

Freedom of expression is as central to a democratic society as the Sharif family is to the PML-N. It is the essence of any democratic system and thus enshrined in the Constitution of Pakistan. Practically, it seems to be the last thing our governments and leaders care about. This is the only item of the agenda where major political parties find themselves on the same page; the less the people have the opportunity to express their thoughts freely, the better.

But, the problem with the democratic system of the government is that it needs certain ingredients to prosper. It is the dialogue among horizontal and vertical layers of the society which brings different groups and classes in harmony to achieve common objectives. An effective dialogue can not occur if the participants do not have a chance to share views without any fear.

For an effective dialogue among various layers of the society, freedom of speech and expression is a primary requirement, among others. If we take into account continuous and repetitive attacks on media personalities and opinion makers, it is no secret that speaking the truth and expressing an opinion is becoming more and more difficult. During the PPP government, under the visionary leadership of Mr. Zardari, the fundamental human right of expression and speech was badly exposed to the Talibanized justice.

During the tenure of the last government, standards of cowardice reached new and record heights. Unlike the current government , it was very focused and clear headed. It had one point agenda, to complete its tenure for five years. The rest, country included, could go to hell. And it did.

Salman Taseer, former Governor of Punjab, had a personality quite opposite to most of his fellow politicians. He was bold, outspoken, visionary and brave. He had his own opinion and was never shy to share it. Like the majority of educated Pakistanis his understanding of Zia’s introduced laws, under Islamic labels, was different from those of extremist outfits. But, unlike most of the Pakistani intelligentsia, he said it loud and clear. In addition he went out of the way to support a Christian lady, who was charged with blasphemy, but in fact seemed innocent to him. When his own bodyguard showered bullets on him and took his life, the PPP leadership was completely lost. His killing in January 2011 was followed by the murder of Shehbaz Masih, Minister for Minority Affairs. Both these people could have been heroes for the party which would have steered the course of events in the right direction, but the party leadership threw these high profile sacrifices in the dust bin, completely surrendered before extremists and became focused on its single point agenda. Thus, at the end of the five year term, freedom of expression and speech was already in a critical stage and on a ventilator.

In the general election of 2013 the soul of the PPP took the body of the PML-N, which emerged as victorious. The first thing the Nawaz led government did was to renounce all promises made during the election campaign. Then, it shook hands with enemies of any sort of freedom and removed freedom of speech from the ventilator. The patient succumbed to death immediately. The authorities might have recorded the time of death, but it was not communicated to the general public which still believes it to be alive. This corpse now lies in some unknown morgue in Lahore. In the darkness of an unmarked night the coffin of freedom of speech will be interred deep in the soil. The nation is proud to be blessed with a free and awake media, but still no one knows who gave 1.5 billion dollars to Pakistan and why. Thus, in all likelihood, the nation will never know when the death of freedom of speech occurred, the time it was buried and where.

The incumbent family dictatorship, which insists on being considered a legitimate democratic government, came into power facing major challenges such as terrorism, religious extremism, power shortage, rising inflation and unemployment, all requiring immediate measures. To curb terrorism and improve the law and order situation in Karachi the government came up with its best policy of action, do nothing at all. Then, it started operations in Karachi. To this day, both the operations and killing of innocents is going hand in hand. To tackle extremism and the Talibans, it came up with another excellent policy; beg terrorists for talks. Now both sides are playing at negotiations to arrive at already obvious results. If the government does not want to live with such paradoxes, then the question it is facing is quite simple. Can we allow any person or group to use force to impose their so called Islam on a population of 180 million?

However, like its predecessors, either our political leadership lacks the guts to address ruthless challenges or it is pondering on how to benefit from a Talibanized state. Our religious leadership, on the other hand, is doing even worse. The nation is facing a direct threat to its existence of integrity, while our scholars of the Islamic Ideological Council are telling husbands that they do not need to seek permission from the first wife to re-marry. In addition, IIC also says that Islam does not put an age limit for the marriage of a girl. And, in the name of Islam, we are being forced to accept such interpretations as they are. Any question or difference of opinion can put us on the wrong side.

If our leadership is in a confused state then the Taliban and their sympathizers, quite clear about their objectives, are constantly moving forward to materialize the differences between civil and military relationships and to divide the nation further. Those scholars who differ with the Taliban’s interpretations of Islam and whose opinion mattered have either left the country or been killed. Those who still live in Pakistan are under threat, like writers, media and politicians. At this moment only those who express the same values and ideas as the Talibans remain safe.

At the start of this year, in January, the famous columnist and playwright Asghar Nadeem Syed was attacked. He received two wounds, but survived. Some days ago, unknowns fired on the car of a famous TV anchorman and senior analyst, Raza Rumi. His driver succumbed to injuries and his bodyguard, although injured, survived the attack. Very "active after incident" chief minister Punjab Shehbaz Sharif asked for the report of the event, but it is an open secret that the report will be lost under an unattended pile of waiting reports, and the murderers will never be caught. However, the message for other writers is loud and clear; if they revisit their views they could be the next target.

To ensure the free expression of opinion is a sacred duty of every democratic government. While interring the coffin of dialogue and freedom of speech deep in the ground our rulers today must not forget that sooner or later the fire will reach their bodies too. The government of the PPP refused to learn this. If they had then today the son of Yousuf Raza Gilani, former PM of Pakistan, would not be under arrest by extremists, and Bilawal Bhutto, chairperson of PPP, would not have had to cancel his visit to Lahore. Benazir Bhutto used to say that democracy is the best revenge. Our current rulers have the chance to learn from other's mistakes and respect the democratic norms. If they refuse, democracy will take its revenge.

Third Strategic Dialogue and Pak-US relationship

If artificial smiles of cordiality, genial and firm handshakes, numerous photo-ops, vows of everlasting friendship and hollow promises for the future are considered the only parameters for success of diplomatic negotiations between high-ranking officials of two countries, then the third round of strategic dialogue between Pakistan and the United States, at Washington DC, has largely been a great achievement. If this round of negotiations between two nations, both playing a decisive role in the fate of terrorism, are evaluated against the facts and practicalities, then finding a ray of hope for peace and stability in the destabilised part of South Asia is little less than a Herculean task.

The latest round of strategic dialogue between America and Pakistan does not offer any hint for constructive change in the violent situation of the region, thus resulting in challenges for Pakistan. We cannot say, in the continuing peace process in Afghanistan (which also includes underground negotiations with the Taliban), what the nature of Pakistan's role will be, and if their legitimate security concerns will be addressed. Before the mid-term elections in the United States, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton urged Pakistani officials to make 'difficult decisions' and go after the Taliban. Before the US president's official visit to India, the Obama administration remained silent on the question of US role in resolving the Kashmir issue, despite the requests of the Pakistani foreign minister. Absence of any substance, except a $2 billion military package, during the news conference of Hillary Clinton and Shah Mahmood Qureshi, is enough to suggest that a collision of interests and differences in priorities still exists.

Military aid worth $2 billion is intended to enable the Pak Army to purchase indispensable military equipment from the United States, to effectively operate against the Taliban and associates of al-Qaeda, but the timeframe of this aid package makes us wonder if the US really wishes Pakistan to take decisive action against the well-funded and sufficiently-equipped militants. A five year aid package, from 2012 to 2016, by the Obama administration, which has made it very clear on many occasions that it will start to withdraw its troops from Afghanistan by the end of July 2011, poses some new questions. If the United States is really serious about accomplishing its mission by the middle of next year, then allied forces, during the next eight months, will try to hit the Taliban hard, so that the US may reap as many advantages as possible. In the same period, on the other hand, to keep the Pak Army insufficiently equipped against sophisticated al-Qaeda suggests murky developments.

This conception is further empowered by the fact that the US has yet to pay Pakistan its share of $2 billion, a smaller part of operational expenses which the US pays annually as a partner in the war on terror. During the third round of strategic dialogue no reference was made to this by the US administration, despite the fact that the Pakistan Army has paid not only for its own part, but also for that of the US. In addition, the US has linked the humanitarian aid for flood victims with the civilian aid to be delivered under the Karry-Lugar bill. It means the US will not pay any additional amount for the rehabilitation of flood affectees.

The above-mentioned facts make it clear that at a time when war on terror has entered a final and decisive phase, Pakistan is being denied any substantial help to stand firmly. Also, the Pakistan Army, which is basically trained and organised to handle aggression along Eastern borders, is being forced to take decisive action against militants in North Waziristan. A military operation in North Waziristan has the potential to put financially weak Pakistan and an inadequately equipped Pak Army (to fight against Taliban ) directly at war with the Taliban in Afghanistan. This possibility probably best explains the hesitation of the Pak Army, which is always mindful of aggression from Eastern borders, to start operations in North Waziristan.

Kashmir is the main bone of contention between India and Pakistan, and has caused three wars between these neighbouring countries. Until the Kashmir issue is resolved peacefully, neither the Pakistani nation nor Pakistan's armed forces can be at peace from its Eastern borders. An appeal made by Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi that the US plays its role to solve the longstanding issue of Kashmir, actually expresses Pakistan's seriousness towards peace in Afghanistan. The Pakistan Army can take serious action against the Taliban and al-Qaeda when it has well-founded reasons to believe that sacredness of Eastern borders will not be violated. Thus demands made by the Obama administration, which clearly prefers Indian approval, at the expense of Kashmiri people and Pakistan's security concerns, are far from being realistic.

We make mistakes in moments, but we bear their results for years and decades to come. While envisaging new geo-political balance, it will be better for the US administration, regional stability and global peace not to ignore historical facts and geographical factors. Humans have a tendency not to learn from history, so history repeats itself. Barak Obama will be visiting India in November. During his stay in New Delhi, perhaps it will become clearer if he wishes to see history repeated, or prefers to alter its course.

( This article is also published on daily The Statesman on October 27, 2010 )
Thanks for visiting Blog From Paris

Third Round of US-Pak Strategic dialogue October 2010; Hopes and Fears.

At the end of latest round of US-Pakistan strategic dialogue, US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, with Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi at her side, announced a five year $ 2 billion aid package for Pakistan. She hoped that it will reassure Pakistan of the long term US commitment to Pakistan's military needs and will also empower Pakistan to go after Taliban and Al-Qaida affiliates on its territory. Exact terms of the deal are still being negotiated, the goal is to ramp up US military aid to Pakistan incrementally over the five year period. The amount will enable Pakistan to purchase US made arms, ammunition and accessories from 2012 to 2016.


The striking feature of this aid package is that Obama administration will refuse to train or equip those Army units which are believed to have killed unarmed prisoners and civilians during recent offensives against Taliban. New York Times sees this the cutoff of funds as "an unusual rebuke to a wartime ally, and it illustrates the growing tensions with a country that is seen as a pivotal partner, and sometimes impediment, in a campaign to root out and other militant groups". At the moment it is not sure - as process is not over yet, how many Army units will be denied of American equipment and training. However, it is very evident that some of the units, which successfully handled operations against Tliban, will not benefit from latest aid package.




The third round of the US-Pakistan strategic dialogue came as the countries tried to ease tensions after a NATO gunship helicopter killed three Pakistani paramilitary troops and Pakistan retaliated by shutting down a critical supply route to allied troops in Afghanistan. It must have provided an opportunity to the high-level administration on both sides to strengthen the working relationship.


White House, however, preferred to provide only a vague description of the conversations. Most of the strategic dialogue is focused on a range of subjects, including counterterrorism, nuclear security, flood relief and trade. After the announcement of the latest aid package, it becomes very celar that US will expect Pakistan to step up its efforts against those Talibans, which are fighting against allied forces in Afghanistan.

Pervez Musharraf, former Army Chief and president of Pakistan, has criticized American behavior towards Pakistan. While speaking at Chicago University, he said that Pakistanis has offered great sacrifices in the war against terror and they complain that US has failed to play a constructive role to resolve longstanding issues of Kashmir and Palestine. He said that Obama's decision to visit India, but not Pakistan, implies that US is not serious about Pakistan.


It may not be a coincidence that the third round of strategic dialogues happened before the mid-term elections in November 2010. If United States is serious about the war in Afghanistan than Pakistani administration also have serious concerns over its role in negotiating talibans, US role to resolve Kashmir problem, reconstruction of flood affected areas, Indian presence in Afghanistan and openness of American market to Pakistani products etc. The American warmness towards Pakistan, disregarding Pakistan's security interests, may only seem as an effort focused on satisfying disappointed US voters and thus will not be prone to bring any solid results.