— File Photo

After Yousuf Raza Gilani was disqualified by the Supreme Court from holding a seat in parliament , the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) had an opportunity to bring an appeasing face to the front. But they brought Raja Pervez Ashraf instead who was even more unpopular as compared to Gilani.

When asked to explain this move, at a recent brain storming session with journalists, PPP leaders said he was an accidental prime minister. The party’s main candidate was Makhdoom Shahabuddin, who was nominated by President Asif Ali Zardari.

As soon as the ANF ordered the arrest Makhdoom Shahabuddin in the ephedrine quota case, just hours before the expiry of the deadline to file nomination papers for the prime ministerial post, the party searched for an alternative and picked Qamar Zaman Kaira.

This alarmed the PPP-allied Chaudhries of Gujrat who did not want a prime minister from their backyard.

So PPP started looking for a third candidate. It was already very close to the deadline.

The party had less than half an hour to find a new candidate and two proposals with it.

So President Zardari, who was sleeping when warrants were issued against Makhdoom and woke up an hour before the deadline, settled on a covering candidate, Raja Pervez Ashraf.

When PPP stalwarts finished this story, a journalist asked: “If this is how you pick the country’s prime minister, are you surprised why you lost last week’s elections?”

The question led to some soul searching and a pro-PPP journalist said the “Phupi factor” had also paralysed the party, claiming that the president’s sister Faryal Talpur had too much influence in the party.

PPP sources believe that sister-brother duo disliked traditional PPP jiyalas, particularly those who were close to Benazir Bhutto, and those with some influence, like the Makhdooms of Hala, were borne only for political reasons.

Moreover the second rank leaders, who are the backbone of a political party, were ridiculed and some were also pushed out of the party, the source added.

Some insiders alleged that at one party meeting, Mrs Talpur threw her shoes at a jiyala.

Another party source said that the president also liked insulting the ‘oldies’.

During a television interview, the president asked one of his senior assistants to muzzle the sacrificial goats kept nearby or threatened to tie him with the goats.

There’s no way to substantiate these claims.

Most probably they are incorrect but they do show a growing disenchantment in the PPP with its top leadership. The debate eventually led to the question that every PPP supporter asks, what to do now?

Every one agreed that the party needs to reorganise itself in the next five years if it wants to win the next election.

And the first step they suggested by the supporters was giving Bilawal Bhutto a greater say in party affairs.

They believe that Bilawal wants to bring disgruntled party workers back to the party. He also wants to democratise the party and share the decision making process with senior party leaders, according to the party loyalists.

Party insiders say that Bilawal had openly criticised the distribution of party tickets for the May 11 elections, pointing out that deserving candidates were ignored to please those close to his father and other senior leaders.

The insiders claim that Bilawal seemed unhappy with the decision to give tickets for two National Assembly seats and one provincial assembly seat from Punjab to former prime minister Yousaf Raza Gilani’s sons. All of whom were defeated in the polls.

Another PPP candidate in Islamabad, Faisal Sakhi Butt, got the ticket allegedly because of his links with President Zardari despite a warning from the local PPP workers that he was extremely unpopular. He too lost.

PPP supporters argue that Bilawal would do things differently, as he grew up in the West and his decisions will be based on merit.

What PPP jiyalas are not sure about is if Bilawal has the resolve and the strength of his mother and grandfather who fought against despots and brought them down?

And even more important than that: Is Bilawal willing to go through the process?

Some already say that he is not and that Mr Zardari may have to bring one of his daughters into politics.

This leads to another question: does the Bhutto family still have the charisma to bring people back to PPP? Some may argue that the days of the “khandani (dynastic)” politics are over.

May be so but the Bhutto family is still relevant, and not just in Sindh.

And the party they lead may have been weakened during the last five years but it remains a major political force and can always bounce back if it gets the leaders it deserves.

A former federal minister of the PPP, however, warned that the issue which brought his party down could also prevent it from returning to power i.e. the energy crisis.

He was of the view that while the energy crisis may continue for the next 10 to 15 years, the Sharif brothers could reduce the load-shedding to up to three hours a day, if they try hard.

And if they succeed in doing so, it will be difficult to dislodge them.

I wish you were old enough to vote. That would have added three more votes to this house. Three more votes for Pakistan. No, I would not have asked you to vote for my candidate. That would be your decision.

Yes, I am your father but that does not give me the right to ask you who to vote for. It is between you and your conscience. It should be your decision and nobody else should ever be allowed to force you to vote for or against someone. Not even your father.

I would have only asked you to make a pledge to God and to yourself that you would vote for the person who you, not others, think is the best.

You cannot imagine how long I waited for this opportunity to vote. I am not the only one who had to wait. The entire nation waited for this opportunity for generations.

No, this is not the first election in our country and I hope it will not be the last either. But it is important. Very important. For the first time in more than 60 years, we are going to replace one elected government with another.

Why is it important? You will understand why when you are old enough to vote. I hope you do. I hope you do not let your votes go to waste because you had to go to a concert, watch football or simply because it’s too hot or too cold to vote.

I hope you do not vote for someone because your friends asked you to vote for or because he or she has a cute face. And I pray that you are not coerced to vote for someone as many in this country are.

Who will I vote for? I will vote for Pakistan. How can someone vote for an entire country? You always vote for your country because those you elect, run the country.

If you vote for good people, you get good rulers. If you vote for bad people, you get bad rulers.

There are other ways of changing a ruler too but those are beyond my control. Those methods have been tried many times in this country but never worked.

Besides, I do not have the powers to change things by any other means. I have only one power, the power to vote and I want to use it.

You want to come with me and see how I vote? OK. I do not know if they will let you go with me but I will take you along if they do. I want you to see how this sacred ritual is performed.

I want you to remember me as someone stamping a ballot paper and then putting it inside the box. I do not want you to remember me as someone throwing stones at the police. Evading police’s batons. Braving tear gas. Running down the street to escape arrest. Chanting slogans against or for someone.

We have done all that but that should end now. No need for young people to die to bring a change. No strikes. No long marches. No sit-ins. No hunger strikes. No hangings. No floggings.

I now have the right to bring a change through peaceful means and I want to retain that right. That’s why it is so important for me to vote.

I want to vote because I love this country. Why I love this country? Remember, one of you once said to me: “Dad, I love you because I love you?” So, I love this country because I love this country.

I love it now and I loved it then. I love it when I lived in a small quarter with a friend, Anjum Rashid, and we had no food and no money to buy food. I remember how delighted we were when a grocer loaned us some rice and potatoes.

Another friend, as hungry as we were, joined us and we had a feast. We loved that rice. We loved that grocer. And we loved the country because we could borrow money rice and potatoes to feed ourselves.

I loved this country even when I only had two blankets and I had to share them with your cousins, who were visiting me. It was so cold that we cried. Yes, tears rolled down our cheeks but we thanked God that we had two blankets and were willing to share them with each other.

I loved this country even when a friend, Taher Khan, and I had to sleep on a bench in Karachi’s Hill Park and in the morning washed our faces with tap water. And then we had our breakfast at a friend’s place. We thanked God for being born in a country where people shared food even though they had little to share.

No, I never thought of not loving this country. I loved it then. I love it now. That’s why I want to vote for it.

The author is a correspondent for Dawn, based in Washington, DC.

The views expressed by this blogger and in the following reader comments do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Dawn Media Group.

Swat Valley. —File photo by AP

“This is the heart of Taliban country,” said Azam Effendi, a retired brigadier who chose to stay in his ancestral village, Bagh Dheri, Swat, after retirement. “And yet I have no walls, no guards and no dogs.”

Effendi insisted this was the way to co-exist with your adversaries. But he did not say he was from the former royal family of Afghanistan, which gave him a certain advantage over others.

As he left after dinner, I sat there listening to the mountain night, bewitching and mysterious.

During the day the valleys echoed with election slogans. It was all so familiar; from Islamabad to Swat we saw dozens of rallies. Stopped for some. Ignored others.

Like in some other places in KPK and Northern Punjab, PML-N and PTI are the main contenders for two national assembly seats from Swat. PPP and ANP are a close third.

The rallies in Swat were as rowdy as those in other places. Slogan, pamphlets, posters and banners dominated all major streets and bazaars.

But the night was a different matter. The darkness reintroduced a sense of uncertainty to a land which only recently was run by the Taliban. The darkness increased during blackouts, now a common practice across Pakistan.

I could not figure out why I was uneasy but I was. Sitting quietly, I heard the wind hissing through the trees and orchards of Swat. Did I hear somebody groan?

Perhaps not but scared of my own imagination, I went inside. It was so comforting to sleep under the blankets when rest of the country was burning in summer heat.

In the morning, Effendi showed us bullet marks on his walls. Bigger holes were those of the shells fired during the 2009 military operation against the militants.

From Malakand to Bagh Dheri, we were stopped at more than a dozen military check posts, manned by soldiers in battle gear. Each time we entered a new town; we had to register at a military post and were checked out while leaving.

Despite the bullet marks and the check posts, the military presence is surprisingly popular in Swat. People acknowledge that the army helped restore stability to Swat and want the military to stay for as long as it takes to completely eradicate the threat of militancy.

I was surprised when an ANP supporter in Miandam town rejected the suggestion that the army had committed extrajudicial killings.

“It’s a war and those who fought the military were killed,” said Z. Khan, a school teacher.

But another ANP worker at a rally in Madiyan said he was not sure who brought the Taliban to Swat. “Perhaps, those who brought them are now fighting them.”

However, he also conceded that now the military should stay as long as was needed to defeat militants.

A government official overlooking the electoral process rejected the suggestion that the military may favor some candidates on the election day.

“So far, they have been completely neutral and I do not see how they can influence the voting,” he said. “I think the military wants to retain its neutrality.

In NA 30, Swat, Amir Maqam, a former PML-Q who is now in PML-N, has an edge over others but not because of his party. He is a leader of the powerful Gujjar fraternity and others also admire him because of his services to the community.

In NA 29, PML-N and PTI are engaged in a close fight while Jamaat-e-Islami is also in the game.

The Taliban’s exit from the scene has not weakened religious influence in Swat. The valley retains a strong adherence to Islam. Mosques are full at all five prayers.

But people do not respond positively when asked if they wanted Sharia.

“Swat is a part of Pakistan and it should follow the Pakistani constitution,” said Naseer Gul of Mingora. “In the name of Sharia, the Taliban imposed a very cruel system. We do not want that to be repeated.”

We met many who grew beards under the Taliban but were now clean shaven.

“If I want a beard, I will keep it. I do not want others to tell me what to do,” said Samad Khan of Mingora.

The media also has had its impact on Swat. People watch all major television channels and seem to have a clear opinion on all major issues.

“No more drones. I will vote for those who stop the drones,” said almost each of a dozen people interviewed in a Miandam hotel.

“We want someone who will end load shedding. We will not vote for those who make false claims,” said one.

“We want them to tell us how they will provide roti- kapra and makan to all. We need concrete plans, not mere promises,” said another.

All these were reassuringly familiar. So we went to bed, contended with the familiarity surrounding us.

In the morning we learned that ten gunmen were deployed around our hotel to make sure we were not kidnapped.

Painting by Shubnum Gill.

I stopped outside a house near Islamabad’s Covered Bazaar. This is where Begum Sarfraz Iqbal lived. The road is now named after her. And this was where I interviewed Faiz Ahmed Faiz so many years ago.

It was published in The Muslim, Islamabad, on June 28, 1982. Islamabad was still a small, leafy town with tall pine and Eucalyptus trees lining the roads.

The air was always fragrant with the aroma of seasonal flowers. It rained heavily in the summer. So the evenings were almost always cool. The winter was cold and mysterious.

The inescapable dust which now covers the city from all sides was not there. Green patches of trees crisscrossed the city and a thick carpet of grass prevented the soil from turning into dust.

All things fall apart. Is Islamabad falling apart too? Hopefully not but it has changed. Many people and places that our generation associated Islamabad with are disappearing fast.

Begum Sarfraz Iqbal and Faiz Saheb are both dead. The Covered Bazaar is no more. Half of it has already been demolished and the rest is awaiting the hammer.

But when I arrived at this house back in 1982, all three – Faiz Saheb, Begum Sarfraz and the bazaar – were still there.

“I have been waiting for you,” said Begum Sarfraz Iqbal when I entered the house. I knew she was and I also knew why.

She had arranged the interview on my request but on one condition, she will see and approve the questions. “I do not believe in censorship,” she said, “but you have just started your career and obviously I am not sure if you can handle such a major interview.”

I showed her the questions. She read them, twice. Looked at me and said: “No, there will be no interview. You can have tea with Faiz Saheb and go.”

When I asked why, she said: “These are not questions. These are political statements: Urdu should not be the national language of Pakistan, a state should have no ideology, there is no room in Pakistan for art for art’s sake and religious politics should be banned. Where is there question? And why should a poet get involved in such controversies?”

Her rebuke depressed me. This was going to be first major interview and I was really looking forward to it. I did not try to defend myself against her charges. Did not have to. As she finished, Faiz Saheb walked into the room.

“Bhai, sobah, sobah kis per naraz ho rahi hain (who are you shouting at so early in the morning)?” he said.

“This cub reporter from The Muslim,” she said. “I promised him an interview with you but his questions are more for a politician than a poet. So I told him he can leave after the breakfast.”

“No, no, no. Don’t get upset. Not with the young people,” said Faiz Saheb and asked me to show him the questions.

I saw a ray of hope, walked to the dining table where Faiz Saheb was waiting for the breakfast and showed him the questions. He asked me to make three cups of tea while he read the questions.

I did. He put the papers down and said: “Bring your notebook. Let’s try to finish the interview with the breakfast.”

We started the interview. He would read one question or political statement, as Begum Sarfraz Iqbal had rightly said, at a time and say: “Let’s rephrase it.”

In the process, he turned each political statement into a literary issue without changing the points I had tried to raise. More than once, he also told me how to channel my emotions into a good piece of writing.

“A good journalist tries to instigate the person he is interviewing to say the things he wants. You do not say it yourself. Be cool-headed, methodical and well-prepared. Being emotional does not help,” Faiz Saheb said.

Thus the interview that appeared in The Muslim, and was also included in Ikram Azam’s book, “Poems from Faiz” (1982, Nairang-e-Khayal Publications), happened only because Faiz Saheb was willing to accommodate even a “cub reporter.” A lesser poet would have kicked me out of the room for wasting his time.

Q: It is said that you identify yourself with the people of the land but you leave them whenever they are in trouble?

Faiz: If you want to say that I disappeared from the political scene, it is something different. I did participate in politics in the past but I have left it. I am a poet and not a politician.

But as far as my love for the people is concerned, I have always identified myself with them. I am proud of my people, my land. I have never left them. I will never leave them.

Q: Then why are you living in Beirut and not in Pakistan?

Faiz: Yes, hundreds of thousands of Pakistanis are living outside the country. One cannot assume that they do not love Pakistan.

I have taken up a job in Beirut. I have been made the editor of a periodical, “Lotus”, and it is my responsibility. That’s why I am staying in Beirut for the time being.

Q: When do you intend to come back to Pakistan?

Faiz: In the near future. I will go back to Beirut, make some alternative arrangement for the “Lotus” and only then I can come back.

Q: What happened during your last visit to Pakistan?

Faiz: Not much. There was some misunderstanding at the Karachi airport, where I stayed for a night on my way to Tokyo where I was going to attend a writers’ conference.

I had to delay my journey for one night. Later, the misunderstanding was removed by Mir Ali Ahmed Talpur and others and I proceeded to my next destination.

Q: It is alleged that you are very eloquent when you talk about Vietnam or Palestine but you are not equally eloquent about Kashmir. Is it true?

Faiz: Who says I am not eloquent about Kashmir? Go through the editorials I wrote about Kashmir in the Pakistan Times and see how eloquent I was.

As far as Vietnam and Palestine was concerned, I did support the cause of the Vietnamese and I do support the Palestinians. I am proud of my stand on these international issues.

Q: Many important events took place in Pakistan in the recent past. Did you reflect those events in your poetry?

Faiz: Whatever I see around me, I read about, I feel for; I absorb it in my memory, which is later reflected in my poetry.

My latest collection of poems, “Meray Dil, Meray Musafir,” is all about Pakistan, its people and their feelings. I am a Pakistani, like all others, and have never considered myself something separate from the mainstream of our national life.

Some of my poetry is “Hekayet-e-dil,” that’s my own personal experience; some of it is about my country.

Q: Poets and writers of our time have become very careful in expressing what they see and feel. Are you satisfied with their attitude?

Faiz: There is nothing new about it. It is an old tradition. Whenever the circumstances are unfavorable, some of our writers take refuge in their own world. They find out many excuses for their utopian attitude, like art for art’s sake and personal aesthetics.

But some people, though very few, do not doge their responsibilities and become more eloquent like Habib Jalib.

Q: What do you say about the art for art’s sake attitude?

Faiz: There is nothing wrong in it if it is genuine. After all, it does reflect the social environment of a particular time and talks about the attitude of a particular group of society in that period, no matter how subjective it is.

Q: Do you think that what is being written now by our writers is genuine?

Faiz: Some of it is genuine and some of it is not. It has always been like that. Some of the literature is written as a fashion and some of it is to articulate the experience of life. All the written words of a particular time are never genuine. Some of it has always been superfluous.

What is important is that a poet or a writer should honestly reflect his experience instead of doing verbal jugglery or imitating others.

Q: Don’t you think that our Urdu literature only reflects the experience, feelings and interests of a particular class?

Faiz: Unfortunately, so far, only the people of a particular class have been well-versed in Urdu and can write literature. So to that extent it does represent a class. But whatever is written in Urdu is not necessarily about a particular class.

All the great poets of the world were not from the working class. It is not important to which class one belongs. It is more important to see what he is writing about and what he believes in.

Q: Don’t you believe that what is written in Urdu is not communicated to the masses?

Faiz: No, this is wrong. Now even the people from the working class are learning Urdu and what is written in that language is communicated to all. Educated and less educated both. Rather, it also reaches the illiterate people.

Q: But what is written in Urdu cannot become as popular among the masses as the poetry of Bulleh Shah, Shah Latif or Rahman Baba. Don’t you agree?

Faiz: Well, there have always been two voices. Not only in our literature but in all the places where there existed a social setup similar to ours. One represented the masses and the other the court. But even in that of the court; the life of the common man is reflected. Only the idiom is different.

Whenever there was a feudal setup and there was a court, the language of the classics was elevated from the spoken language.

Poetry itself is not the spoken language. It is also formalised. Only Bulleh Shah and Waris Shah are not folk. The bulk of folk poetry is unanimous.

The same could be said about other forms of art. The expression of folk art is always different from that of social art. But it does not cross out the community or content of expression. A number of things are always similar and overlap each other.

However, the culture of the dominating class becomes dominant and that’s why we call it classics. Otherwise, folk art is also a classic in its own style.

Q: It is said that what is written by poets and writers is not in conformity with the ideology of Pakistan. What would you say about it?

Faiz: It depends on what one thinks of the ideology of Pakistan. Everyone has a different concept about it.

If one means religion, then there is no difference. We all believe in Islam. However, the difference is of interpretation and not belief. There are many people who interpret Islam in different ways and those who do not agree with their interpretation are wrong in their eyes.

Actually, it is not even the interpretation they are bothered about. It is politics. And when you talk of politics, the difference of opinion is but very natural.

Q: It is also said about you that you do not believe in the ideology of Pakistan. Would you like to comment?

Faiz: Let them say what pleases them. Not only do I believe in the ideology of Pakistan, I think that whatever I write is always in accordance with the ideology of Pakistan. I have never differed from this ideology. However, if my interpretation of the ideology of Pakistan is different from theirs, I cannot help it.

Q; Urdu is said to be the ‘lingua franca’ in Pakistan. Can it really serve the purpose or will it have to be replaced by some local language?

Faiz: We cannot do without Urdu. It is a developed language and has reached this stage after an evolutionary process of about 300 years. Other languages are yet to reach that stage.

However, some local languages can and will reach this stage in future and replace Urdu but not in the near future.

Q: If we need a developed language, then why not English which is more developed than Urdu?

Faiz: English is only spoken by those who come from a particular background and go to particular schools. They are not even one per cent of the total population, while Urdu is understood by the majority of the people in Pakistan.

The author is a correspondent for Dawn, based in Washington, DC.

The views expressed by this blogger and in the following reader comments do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Dawn Media Group.

Illustration by Abro

Martyrs’ monument, GHQ, Rawalpindi: Bearded men in turbans are the new enemy. And the message came loud and clear from the country’s military high command.

The enemy’s bearded face dominated two large screens, placed on both sides of the parade ground at GHQ. It was April 30, the day when the nation remembers those killed in the fight against terror.

The guests were escorted to the ground by smartly dressed military officers, both men and women. The guests could see that the military had changed.

As the guests were seated, the two screens lit up, showing men in uniform, including policemen, fighting bearded militants. The militants were shown ambushing military convoys and killing innocent civilians. There’s no room for ambiguity. The military had made up its mind: the Taliban was the new enemy.

The military high command wanted the whole nation to learn this and to notice its commitment to fighting the militants. So the country’s civilian leaders, both in and out of the government, were also invited to join the army in pledging to fight the new enemy. The media and diplomats from friendly nations were also there to watch this and share it with the rest of the world.

Some watched silently, some with tears rolling down their cheeks as the stories of terrorism’s victims were reenacted for the screen.

A child was shown playing with his father, hugging his mother, preparing for his examination, training at the military academy and then taking up his duties as a soldier.

The story then moved to his marriage, his children and finally to the ambush as tall bearded men, their faces hidden behind turbans, attacked a military convoy. The soldier died fighting the enemy in a barren valley.

Then the parents, children and siblings of slain soldiers were brought on the stage. They completed the story, telling the audience who killed those soldiers and why.

A Baloch woman, whose son died while fighting militants in Balochistan, broke down on the stage. Her wailing wet most eyes. Even foreign military attaches could be seen wiping their tears.

Every body joined her when she chanted, “Pakistan Zindabad.”

The martyrs whose stories were reenacted on the Martyrs’ Day included a police officer, a politician and a journalist.

Police superintendent Syed Kalam was tasked with “uniting the people” against the Taliban and was killed when he refused to give up his campaign.

Journalist Nasrullah Khan Afridi was silenced because he refused to stop criticizing the Taliban.

Politician Bashir Ahmad Bilour was killed because he was trying to unite the country’s political forces against the Taliban.

Their stories were also reenacted and their children too were brought on the stage to tell the audience how they sacrificed their lives in the fight against the terrorists.

The wife of a Western military attaché sobbed as Afridi’s daughter, who cannot speak, used the sign language to share her grief.

The message was loud and clear, the Taliban were the enemy.

And the army chief, Gen. Ashraf Pervez Kayani, warned those who still say this is not Pakistan’s war, not to do so.

“If a small faction wants to enforce its distorted ideology over the entire nation by taking up arms … and considers all forms of bloodshed justified, then does the fight against this enemy of state constitute someone else’s war?” he asked.

Urging people to stop questioning the need to fight the militants, he said: “We cannot afford to confuse our soldiers and weaken their resolve with such misgivings.”

But his deeds were stronger than his words.

The Pakistani governments, both civilian and military, have often been hostile to Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan and his family. Those of us, who have witnessed this hostility, could never imagine that an ANP leader (Bilour) will one day be eulogised at the GHQ.

Similarly, including a journalist and a police officer on the military’s list of fallen heroes also reflected a major change in the country’s military culture.

It seems that the army has not only recognised the Taliban as its enemy but also realises that it needs the support of the entire nation to win this war.

The author is a correspondent for Dawn, based in Washington, DC.

The views expressed by this blogger and in the following reader comments do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Dawn Media Group.

Photo by Eefa Khalid/Dawn.com

The dust gathers on you, moving up slowly. Feet. Ankles. Knees. You try to wipe your face with sleeves and before you realise you are re-rooted into the soil you left behind so many years ago.

We moved from rally to rally, PML-N, PTI, PPP and JI. All noisy but smaller than previous election rallies. The PTI rallies are bigger than those of others, at least in the cities in Punjab and KPK.

Despite the bomb attacks that have prohibited campaigning in parts of KPK, Balochistan and Karachi, people want elections. And they want it now.

It is so different from what we had expected while returning to Pakistan after a long gap.

Terrorism scares people but it has not paralyzed life, at least not in Punjab. People go about doing their daily chores with a nonchalance that surprises all.

Our fears – although not false – were exaggerated. The country is not about to disappear. It is not about to split into small pieces. No foreign troops are ready to move in to seize its nuclear weapons. And the Taliban are not about to take over Pakistan.

I grew a beard before coming here because I was told that those without are vulnerable. They can be mobbed, lynched and kidnapped. I was wrong.

The overwhelming majority is not bearded. And they move about freely.

I convinced my wife to cover her head while landing at the Islamabad airport. I also asked her not to go out unless it was absolutely necessary.

My fears were unfounded. The number of women working outside their homes has increased dramatically and many of them do not wear hijab. Only few go to professions that are considered safe for women, teaching, medicine and dress-making.

Most go to non-conventional sectors, the air force, army, police, media and law. I also saw women working at gas stations, something unthinkable 10 years ago.

I had also forced my children – all boys – to wear full-sleeved shirts and had hidden away their shorts. But since returning to Pakistan, I have seen hundreds of boys in shorts.

I also saw hundreds of private schools, even in lower middle class neighborhoods. All use English as their medium of instruction. Most of them have more girls than boys.
Also, there are more women than men at Pakistani universities.

The Pakistani middle class is alive and well. And while moving in middle class circles, you do not just meet Punjabis and Urdu speakers. There are as many Pashtoons too.

Sindhis and Balochs are also noticeable, although still a small minority. At a recent concert in Islamabad, they outnumbered the Punjabis, although the singer – Arieb – was a Punjabi too.

But this does not mean that all is well. The unemployment is high and under-employment is even higher. There are hundreds of thousands of educated unemployed. They can be recruited by terrorist groups, and some are.

The national economy seems non-functional. The underground economy, which some say is larger than the national economy, is thriving. Smugglers and drug traders have opened new outlets in all major cities for distributing their goods.

This ill-gotten money is then used for constructing new buildings and for making new investments. Some claim that this wealth is also invested in the country’s larger than life electronic media.

The fear of terrorism is always there, even when it is not mentioned. Bomb attacks happen at regular intervals. People quickly move away from the scene and try to forget what they saw.

Their silence is like the silence of the lamb. The butcher moves in, selects a few and slaughters them. Those left behind, quickly fill the gap and continue munching whatever the butcher gave them.

Chairs and tables occupy the place where Punjab’s former governor, Salman Taseer, was killed at Islamabad’s Kohsar market. People admire parrots and parakeets kept in a large cage nearby.

There are no reminders of the assassination that happened two years ago.

While the governor’s murderer, who was once his guard, is still alive and well in his prison cell, Taseer’s son is in the custody of the militants who support the assassin.

They want the governor’s family to forgive the murderer if they want their son back.

This is Pakistan, both weak and strong. Safe and unsafe. Militant and non-militant. Long live Pakistan.

The author is a correspondent for Dawn, based in Washington, DC.

The views expressed by this blogger and in the following reader comments do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Dawn Media Group.

Later in the evening, at a reception where they also served alcohol, some of the guests said the same thing, although they worded it differently. “The Americans have dumped PPP. They are now backing PML-N,” said a guest.

“What if America does not have a favorite in this election?” I asked him. This attracted others too and they joined the conversation.

“You want us to believe that the Americans have stopped interfering in Pakistan?” asked Mr. Chaudhry, the deputy editor of a local newspaper.

“Perhaps,” I replied.

“Rubbish,” said Mr. Khan, an architect who works on several US-funded projects. “Pakistan is too important a country to be left alone.”

“Don’t we give too much importance to ourselves? Perhaps, the Americans have other important things to do as well,” said I.

This triggered an agitated discussion on conspiracies.

“Who sent Musharraf?” asked a guest.

“That too was a conspiracy?” I asked.

“Obviously,” he responded, “he has been sent to weaken the Pakistan army.”

“And how would he do that?” I asked.

“See, how because of him the army is being attacked from all sides. If this continues, the people of Pakistan will start hating their armed forces and that’s what America wants,” said another guest.

“Why would America want that? I asked him.

“They are withdrawing from Afghanistan and have helped build a huge force in that country. On the east, there’s India. On the West, there will be Afghanistan. This will force Pakistan to do whatever the Americans want them to do,” said the guest.

“Someone suggested that PML-N is their favorite. If it is true, it means Nawaz Sharif shares their views and he too wants Pakistan to be sandwiched between two adversaries,” I said.

“Well, who knows? All of them are in America’s pockets,” said yet another guest.

Fascinated by these talks, I decided to take the conversation to the bazaar and engaged some while visiting Banni Chowk and Kirtarpura, two old markets in Rawalpindi.

“Imran is the only one who is not an agent of a foreign power,” said Zeb Khan, while offering a plate of delicious mutton tikkas at Bala Tikka House, one of the best in the federal capital area. “He is against the drones.”

“I am not so sure,” said his friend Nasir Malik, “he too has lived in the West, had a western wife.”

“Maulana Fazlur Rehman is not an agent,” said Abdul Hameed, a man from Mansehra who works at a grocery store in the nearby Raja Bazaar.

“Maulana Fazlur Rehman not an agent?” the other two cried out.

“He was paid millions of dollars to reform madrassahs,” said Zeb Khan.

What he said next contradicted his claim that the maulana too was an agent but nobody seemed to have noticed this contradiction.

“The Americans fear that religious parties can form an MMA-type government in KPK and want to stop it,” he said.

“Why should they be scared of their own agent?” asked I, while reminding him that he said Maulana Fazlur Rehman was an American agent.

“He may be their agent but they do not want a religious government in KPK while they are busy withdrawing their forces from Afghanistan,” came the reply.

“Does it mean that they will prefer PTI or PML-N to dominate the next KPK government?” I asked.

“Yes, perhaps,” said Mr. Khan.

“But you just said that they too, were American agents,” I reminded him.

“Yes, all this is very confusing but one thing is clear, all these politicians are in their pockets,” he said.

“If whoever is in power will work for America, why should they care who wins the election?” I asked.

This started another animated conversation and all four participants, through some twisted logic, concluded that the Americans do not want the May 11 elections. The army too opposes it as does President Zardari. So, the elections will be postponed with the judiciary’s support.

“Now you are saying that the president, the army and the judiciary all work for America,” I reminded them.

“President Zardari? Of course, he does. The whole world knows that,” said one of them.

“The Americans also have had close links to the military. But I am not so sure about the judiciary,” said another.

“I will not be surprised if they too were American agents,” said the first.

“O God, please defeat America’s allies on May 11,” I repeated what I heard at the mosque as I moved out of Bala Tikka House.

“But then, who will run the country if all are agents?” I asked myself.

The author is a correspondent for Dawn, based in Washington, DC.

The views expressed by this blogger and in the following reader comments do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Dawn Media Group.

We were inside the parliament building, saying Friday prayers after a stormy Senate session. What we witnessed inside made all of us feel humble and subdued.

“Put Pervez Musharraf in the same cell where he put Nawaz Sharif. Let snakes and scorpions into his room. Let him cry out in pain,” said one of the senators as the lawmakers vented their anger against the former military ruler.

“Handcuff and shackle him and parade him through the streets,” said another senator.

I opened a little window to the recent past and found myself in the army chief’s official residence in Rawalpindi where Musharraf was staying after toppling Nawaz Sharif. He was still the chief executive of Pakistan, a strange title he coined for himself before moving to the president’s office.

We were there with a media team to interview him. Some members of his advisory team were also there, including a Rawalpindi politician. Musharraf sneezed. Three of these advisors ran to him, holding tissue papers. The Pindi politician reached him first. Others looked at him with envy.

None of them came forward to defend the former dictator when PPP, PML-N and ANP lawmakers berated him this Friday, although some of them were present during the debate too.

The senators also targeted the caretaker government for failing to arrest Musharraf after an Islamabad court refused to grant him bail.

They wanted him “hauled to the worst prison” in the country, as a PPP senator said. Later, one senator also suggested that he should be hanged for toppling a lawfully elected government.

Above all, they wanted him “disgraced, dishonored and humiliated” as a “warning to future adventure seekers.”

The retired general, however, had already suffered much humiliation. The man who once hauled the country’s chief justice to his office and tried to persuade him to resign is now forced to appear before junior magistrates, seeking bail.

But that’s not enough for his enemies. They want more. “Do to him what they did to Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Benazir and Nawaz Sharif,” said one senator, ignoring a plea from the Senate chairman not to get carried away.

The sane among them, however, did warn their colleagues not to go too far. “The ground realities must not be ignored,” said a senior PPP senator. “After all, he is a former army chief and the military obviously will not like this humiliation.”

He urged the angry politicians to seek a way out, proposing “consultation among all stake holders,” i.e. the interim government, the judiciary, PPP, PML-N, ANP and the military.

Other senators also agreed with the suggestion, saying that starting a treason trial against Musharraf will not stop at him. “Don’t forget that the present army chief was also attended Musharraf’s meeting with the chief justice,” said a senator.

The lawmakers pointed out that other civilian and military official also were involved in the crackdown on the judiciary. Then there were other senior generals who supported the coup. And there are judges who endorsed it.

And why stop at Musharraf’s coup? What about Zia’s, Yahya’s and Ayub’s martial laws?

The lawmakers – not just from the MQM or PML-Q – warned that a treason trial will ultimately pitch the military against the civilians and will end up hurting both.

“The question is: Can the country afford such a conflict and do we even need one?” asked a senator.

The discussion moved back to a possible way out of this conflict. Some suggested arranging a “respectable exit” for Musharraf. Others said that Musharraf may not want to exit.

He might have come prepared for whatever is happening to him, may want to spend sometime in the prison, hoping to cash on the sympathy it may generate.

Other lawmakers said that Musharraf can be persuaded to see the risks involved in such a strategy. After all, the government cannot keep hundreds of commandos around his residence forever.

The Taliban, Lal Masjid Brigade and Baloch nationalists have all vowed to kill him and even a little mistake can have very dangerous consequences, they warned.

Some claimed that all those who have some influence in Pakistan – the military, the United States and Saudi Arabia – had asked Musharraf not to come. “Even his friends and relatives advised him against returning to the country but he ignored them all,” said one.

Others, who attended a lunch the chairman Senate hosted for a visiting journalist from the US, said Musharraf should realize that no one will miss him if he went back to Dubai or Britain.

They argued that by returning to the country, he had embarrassed everybody, the military, the caretaker government, political parties and even the judiciary. “Nobody wanted this unnecessary controversy. His absence suits all,” said one of them.

It was July 18, 1993. This was President Ghulam Ishaq Khan’s last day in office. As he started to walk out, a journalist shouted: “Sir, you are indispensible for this country. How can you leave?”

Ghulam Ishaq Khan looked back and said: “Have you ever been to a graveyard? It is full of indispensables.”

The author is a correspondent for Dawn, based in Washington, DC.

The views expressed by this blogger and in the following reader comments do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Dawn Media Group.

Mr Kissinger visited Pakistan from Oct 31 to Nov 1, 1976, but instead of Peshawar, he went to Lahore.

However, to placate the Pakistanis, the Americans offered their “continuing strong support for the security, independence and territorial integrity of Pakistan”.

Secret diplomatic messages, released recently by WikiLeaks, show how the Americans handled the issue.

On July 13, 1976 former US ambassador to Kabul, Theodore L. Eliot, sent a letter to the then US ambassador in Islamabad, Henry A. Byroade, saying: “I have fundamental misgivings about secretary’s meeting Bhutto in Peshawar.

“Peshawar was ancestral home of Afghan president Daoud’s family and it is a city with a sentimental, political and historic significance for Daoud and his family.

“At worst Daoud might attribute Peshawar Bhutto-Kissinger meeting to Bhutto’s machination to underscore American support for Pakistan side in historic Pakistan-Afghan dispute.

“In this event, he would be dismayed at Secretary’s having allowed himself to play in Bhutto’s scenario. This in turn would have negative effect on fragile Pakistan-Afghan rapprochement.

“At very least I think Afghans would regard secretary’s visit to Peshawar as an act of insensitivity.

“In the event secretary’s meeting with Bhutto must take place in Peshawar, I will be grateful to have instructions enabling us to give Afghans reasons behind this selection.

“Even with optimistic assessment of my success at getting Afghans to understand why Peshawar was chosen, present glowing atmosphere for secretary’s visit to Kabul will be damaged.”

Ambassador Byroade responded: “Your instructions will be very difficult and painful to carry out. I am gravely concerned that we may deeply alienate Bhutto by appearing to be overly sensitive to possible Afghan reactions and thereby spoil the
atmosphere in which you will address the important substantive issue of nuclear reprocessing which confronts us.

“This hassle over venue, coupled with the language in the proposed joint statement on Pakistan’s security and independence (which Bhutto is sure to read as an attempt to water down our earlier statements of support for Pakistan’s territorial integrity), are bound to make Bhutto think we are considerably less interested in Pakistan than we had led him to believe over the past five years.

“Both Bhutto and Agha Shahi are now in Balochistan and inaccessible today. I believe I must convey the message on Peshawar directly to Bhutto and will do so as soon as I am able to get to him, but I fear this may take another day or so.

“In order to convey something more positive to Bhutto while I attempt to persuade him to give up on Peshawar, I would appreciate authority to tell Bhutto we want to substitute the following sentence in the proposed joint statement for the present language on the security and independence of Pakistan: the US reaffirmed its continuing strong support for the security,
independence and territorial integrity of Pakistan.

“I realise that this formulation is stronger than what we propose to say in the joint statement with Afghanistan, but our relationship to Pakistan of course has a totally different history and involves commitments we have never made to any Afghan government.

“If I can reassure Bhutto now that there is no change in the substance of our relationship, I may be able to soften the blow on Peshawar. Please advise on para 3 as soon as possible.”

A third message from the State Department, and signed by Mr Kissinger, settled the matter. “Secretary fully supports the substitute formulation that you proposed for the joint statement in para 3 and you are authorised to convey this to Bhutto in the context of your discussion with him on Peshawar,” it said.

“We leave to your judgment the manner in which you present to Bhutto our thoughts on Peshawar. We, of course, wish to avoid irritating Bhutto, but we continue to believe that we owe it to him to tell him candidly the judgment of our ambassador in Kabul about the problems which Peshawar would pose with respect to the overall purpose we had in mind in visiting South Asia at this time.”

He added: “We will, of course, accede to any decision that Bhutto makes.”

Ambassador Byroade met Mr Bhutto and settled the matter as advised.

“I chased Bhutto down in Ziarat, Balochistan. Bhutto and I agreed that Lahore would be the venue for your coming visit.

“In a separate message, which can be read at your leisure, I will give you enough of the flavour of our meeting to allow you to handle this matter in the small talk category while you are here, as I don’t think it will come up in any more formal way.”