Confusion worse confounded
SOMETIMES it is quite frustrating to see mindless contradictions persisting among Pakistani elites, whether they are political or religious leaders or they represent the judiciary.
On Feb 13, several news items caught my attention, proving the point. Pakistan’s religious parties have once again emphasised upon the government the need to open dialogue with the Taliban, while at the same time they blamed India, Israel, the US and other Western countries for ongoing terrorism and mayhem all across the country. On the same day, most of the religio-political parties, including the Jamaat-i-Islami and Pakistan Tehrik-i-Insaf, refused to attend the All-Parties Conference called by the ANP. The party had called this conference to discuss a single-point agenda: how to deal with ever-increasing terrorism in the country.
No one can dare ask these religious parties why one should strike a deal with the Taliban when the West is responsible for terrorism in Pakistan. Even if the Taliban do matter in this equation, then why walk away from discussions to deal with the situation?
It was reported on Feb 13 that a first-ever Pakistani-origin lawyer and parliamentarian, Yasir Naqvi, had been sworn as minister of labour in Canada’s most populous state of Ontario.
Mr Naqvi was elected to the legislative assembly in 2007 and within five years he is now a minister. On the same day, the Supreme Court of Pakistan dressed down Dr Tahirul Qadri and threw out his petition challenging the formation of the Election Commission of Pakistan.
Interestingly, Dr Qadri’s petition was not discussed on its merits. In fact, there were no discussions at all on the petition’s merits, while the court kept questioning Dr Qadri’s loyalty with Pakistan as he holds both Pakistan and Canadian nationalities.
Dr Qadri’s arguments that he has been working all across the globe to promote Pakistan’s soft image and his stand against the Taliban has been widely appreciated, all went in vain.
At one stage, the court even threatened him to defer decision on his petition for an indefinite period. Later, his petition was dismissed as inadmissible.
When Canada can’t question the loyalty of an immigrant-turned-national while nominating him a minister, then why is a Pakistani court so much interested in questioning the loyalty of its own son of the soil?
Unless we as a nation come clear of inconsistencies and contradictions in our thinking and deeds, we will keep questioning why we are regressing instead of progressing.
Jubail, Saudi Arabia