Home Blog Page 80

Pakistan & Obama: A Journey of Love, Hate and Realism!

0

Moeed Pirzada | PIQUE Magazine |

Mantras of foreign policy – laced with juicy terms like Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran – may have been mentioned in presidential debates but Barack Obama fought and won his re-elections against Mitt Romney on fault lines quintessentially American: how big the big brother should be? How to fix the fiscal deficit? Who should pay how much tax? Has Affordable Care Act been the right pill to reform the ailing health care? Should federal government pour in billions to save Atlanta’s auto industry? And should Congress be pushed to pass the Dream Act? Many of such issues are so intrinsic to the US that outsiders – unless they specialize in American Affairs – fail to get a real sense of them. But the merits or demerits of the American debate is of little concern to the people across the blue planet. They see America’s first Black President through a different lens; a lens of their own and one that keeps changing. Pakistan is no different.

Obama then becomes a global chameleon. Americans have elected him to lead them – and now for the second time – but in a strange way almost every part of the world, irrespective of faith, race and color, has one or the other kind of claim upon him. And I am not talking of Obama senior’s Kenya or Lolo Soetoro’s Indonesia or Gujranwala where his mother Ann Dunham briefly worked, or merely of the British and the Europeans who found in his normalcy an inevitable relief from the Puritanism of George Bush; I am literally talking of the whole world.

After his recent re-election he was on his charm offensive across Southeast Asia to stake a bigger presence for the United States which is also supposed to mean: containment of China. And this was also a fast and furious trip during which his mind was stuck in the battle fields of Middle East where Israelis- who had patiently waited for the US elections to end before they could test the new structures thrown up by Arab Spring – were pounding hapless Palestinians and both the aggressors – insecure behind their Iron Dome missile shields – and the victims –armed with useless rockets- were eagerly waiting for the imperial master, the US, to intervene, to disengage and rescue them from the nihilistic futility of each other. But in Thailand many were being dazzled and seduced by an American president who they discovered had this strange affinity for the native brand of Buddhism and to the local monasteries. And in the good old Burma- the romantic land of Amitav Gosh’s elephants, planet’s last dictators and forever young Aung Sang Sui Kyi – the Myanmar Times welcomed him as “O-Burma”.

Can we then blame Pakistanis to fall in love with this strange unbelievable character: Barack Hussain Obama? Before you ask me to get my head examined, let me quickly clarify; I am not talking of now, this accident I am referring to happened more than fourteen hundred days ago, in the seductive summer of 2008. For Pakistanis Senator Obama, the presidential candidate, meant: a challenger to the status quo, David and Goliath story in reverse; a break in the Anglo-Saxon and Jewish strangle hold on global power. And above all, they had a sneaking suspicion that the aspiring president, however hard he may deny, is actually one of them; a Muslim. That was in the months before the US elections of 2008, when the candidate Obama oozed optimism while talking of finding solutions in the Middle East and at least once referred to the Holbrooke’s dreaded “K word”.

It was in those balmy heady days, when many also read an exuberant article written by Professor Adil Najam who then still taught at Boston University. This piece with its rather suggestive title, “Barack Obama’s Pakistan Connections” went into details of how Senator Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham, had worked and lived in Pakistan as a UNDP consultant, how she travelled between Lahore and Gujranwala and lived for months in Lahore’s Avari Towers; and how young Obama had been visiting her. All this was perhaps sufficient for Pakistanis as evidence of their good fortunes; of their moment in history with a new messiah, a younger Nixon in White House. But there was more: young Obama had travelled across Pakistan; stayed with his college friends in Karachi; his roommate in Manhattan during Columbia days, “Sohale Siddiq” was a Pakistani and his memoirs, “Dreams from My Father” provide glimpses of his friendship with several Pakistanis in college days.

Time passed on. In February 2010, I did a tv program in which I invited respected politician, Senator Mushahid Hussain, and prominent tv Anchor Talat Hussain to analyze what one year of Obama presidency meant for Pakistanis. Talat was not much enthusiastic but Senator Mushahid still had a strange optimism about Obama; I remember him taking satisfaction in the middle word of the American president’s name: “Hussain” I don’t know what Mushahid Hussain thinks now in year 2012, but for the same program we did, what is called: “Vox-Pops” in media’s language. Out of the 25 people we interviewed on the streets of Islamabad, most thought that Obama was a good decent man but is a mere pawn of the powerful system he represents, a poster boy of good intentions who will not be able to change anything and thus means nothing to their lives.

By that time it had become clear that Obama’s Middle East peace plan had failed to take off; the initial excitement he created by his speech at Al-Azhar University in Cairo in June of 2009, in which he talked of the “new beginnings’” had gradually evaporated; what disappointed Pakistanis the most was Obama and his team’s quick and total surrender to the Indian position on Kashmir. Pakistanis could feel but Obama’s team could not realize the irony when Richard Holbrooke repeatedly referred to Kashmir as the “dreaded K word”. This to Pakistanis was always a reminder of the furor which New Delhi created when it was briefly hinted in Washington that there will be an Obama envoy for India, Pakistan and Afghanistan. The David of Pakistani fantasy had proved itself far too small, weak and compromised in front of the Goliaths of the day.

By the time America moved towards the election of 2012, Obama in Pakistani minds had become synonymous with endless drone strikes, CIA assassins, will full violation of Pakistani sovereignty and the tragedy of Salala in which 24 Pakistani servicemen were killed by the US air operations. Pakistanis felt that the creation of the misleading term, “AfPak” lead to an unfortunate paradigm shift from Washington to London to Brussels under which Pakistan was increasingly viewed as an entity whose sole purpose was to serve the US and western ends in Afghanistan; a country of around 200 million people was thus being viewed solely with the lens of the Afghan theater of war.

So when Salala tragedy happened, in the November of 2011, to most Pakistanis it was not an accident that happened in the “fog of war” as the US side described it, but a calculated act of ‘punishment’, a natural culmination of all that was brewing for the past several years. This lead to Pakistan blocking the US and NATO supplies through its territory for several months, and before the US elections both sides had cautiously started to pick up threads of a new relationship – albeit limited in scope than what was once imagined when Hillary Clinton first visited Pakistan as the Secretary of State in October of 2009.

Just before the elections, Pakistani media picked up a BBC survey that Pakistan was the only country in the whole world where a slim majority favored Romney winning against Obama. But many doubted the accuracy of that survey. All gossip on tv, radio, social media and the wisdom emanating from the columns of the print publications indicated that still the overwhelming majority of the Pakistanis favored an Obama victory. Pakistanis have perhaps moved full circle on their relationship and historic fantasy with the US.

Traditionally the received wisdom in Pakistan has been that republicans in White house are somehow good for Pakistan; images of Nixon, Kissinger and Ronald Reagan come to mind. Many commentators still –even before this election – offered similar arguments But the rest of Pakistan has moved on. We have understood that the US, this region and the world have reached a stage where attitudes and policies towards Pakistan will not depend upon the man or the party in White house. This could have been true any way but Obama’s four years and the geometric contrast between what he espoused and inspired and what he turned out to be perhaps constituted the final evidence.

In an ironic way Pakistanis have started to become ‘bipartisan’ on US politics. They realized that they have to work their way with whosoever sits in Oval Office and a known devil is better than an unknown angel. Obama thus represented continuity; he visited India but decided not to visit Pakistan, he appeared on tv screens to defend CIA assassins as ‘diplomats’, willfully violated Pakistani sovereignty, multiplied drone attacks and used them as a weapon of choice and refused apologizing to Pakistan even on something as heinous as Salala. But in an odd and cruel way, he and Pakistan have learnt to co-exist and deal with each other; today after the reopening of US and NATO supplies there is a somber realization of the limitations on both sides of what can be demanded or expected or what is possible.

In the months to come the new president and his team will spend most time grappling with the issues of US economy, fiscal deficit, job creation and will have to reflect on healing a United States that in recent elections has appeared bitterly fractured on issues of race, age and party. On foreign policy, Israel has already thrown its gauntlet to challenge and check the political order that had emerged out of what is called ‘Arab Spring; soon containing Iran and adjusting to power transformation in Beijing will dominate attention spans in Washington. Pakistan will continue to be part of two debates: withdrawal from Afghanistan and continuing instability in a nuclear armed Muslim country.

Pakistan’s biggest enemy today is the narrative on Pakistan. This is an egg and chicken story. Whereas the problems Pakistan faces create the narrative but the narrative itself multiplies the challenges on ground and there may be some evidence that it encourages various rivals to keep investing in creating events on ground to beef up the narrative. While Washington and Islamabad deal with the issues of US withdrawal and power arrangements in Kabul, the only real achievement President Obama and his Pakistani interlocutors should aspire for Pakistan – if they grasp it so – will be to help change the narrative on the country.

David Sanger’s book, “Confront and Conceal” paints an Obama worried for an imploding Pakistan armed with nuclear weapons. This needs to change. Pakistan needs to be defined and understood as a large Muslim country of around 200 million grappling with the immense challenges of globalization and relations with west. It’s struggle to define itself, its seeming chaos and its fervent energy all can be understood If viewed along complex political realities like Indonesia, Turkey, Iran and Egypt; making comparisons with the seeming tranquility of tiny petro-republics created across Middle East to make adjustments for British withdrawal are misleading.

President Obama can thus help Pakistan by letting his new team understand the complex realities of this region; by listening more to the diplomatic missions than dictating from Washington; by letting State department lead rather than being made to dance on the whims of Pentagon and CIA; by refusing to turn the US engagement with India and Pakistan to be a zero sum game and above all he needs to sum up all this into a positive message by planning a visit to Pakistan.

Roundtable with Media on Public Health, USAID-JSI, Marriott Hotel, Karachi, 27 November, 2012

0

This Roundtable with Media in Karachi was part of Governance and Policy Advisors (GAP)  dialogue with those who shape public opinion on the challenges facing public health; their possible solutions as seen by health community and civil society organizations; and to create awareness in the media community to help turn these issues into political priorities before the elections. Meeting in Karachi focused on the media in Karachi and Hyderabad and was attended by a large number of morning show hosts. These morning shows –mostly broadcast from tv headquarters in Karachi- typically focus less on politics and more on social issues and issues of health, education and family are discussed more often. But in addition to morning show hosts, anchors of current affairs programs, health reporters, editors of ethnic media, columnists and social activists also attended.

An Exclusive Interview with Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar

0

Dr. Moeed Pirzada’s exclusive interview with Hina Rabbani Khar Foreign Minister of Pakistan. It was historic interview as for the First time “D-8 Summit” was being held in Pakistan. Heads and Foreign ministers from Eight development countries were present in Islamabad. Dr Pirzada discusses the challenges faced by PPP government related to Pakistan’s foreign relations with neighboring countries and principal stand on all issues including the ongoing crisis in Gaza where Israeli Air force is continuously bombing GAZA and targeting the civilian population. She said she has this know how and exposure with foreign delegates and countries high officials. Hina Rabbani Khar Foreign Minister of Pakistan gave details of the recent OIC summit where all these issues were discussed.

Hina Rabbani Khar Foreign Minister of Pakistan in an exclusive interview with Dr. Moeed Pirzada

0

Dr. Moeed Pirzada’s exclusive interview with Hina Rabbani Khar Foreign Minister of Pakistan. It was historic interview as for the First time “D-8 Summit” was being held in Pakistan. Heads and Foreign ministers from Eight development countries were present in Islamabad. Dr Pirzada discusses the challenges faced by PPP government related to Pakistan’s foreign relations with neighboring countries and principal stand on all issues including the ongoing crisis in Gaza where Israeli Air force is continuously bombing GAZA and targeting the civilian population. She said she has this know how and exposure with foreign delegates and countries high officials. Hina Rabbani Khar Foreign Minister of Pakistan gave details of the recent OIC summit where all these issues were discussed.

Roundtable on Governance Issues held with Awami National Party (ANP), 20 November, 2012, Islamabad

0

The ANP team – led on this occasion by Senator Haji Adeel (Senior Vice President and Chairman Manifesto Committee ANP) assisted by Senator Ilyas Bilour and three leading members of Mulguree Doctoran (MD) which is an affiliated health policy think tank that advises the party Three ex-presidents from Mulgaree Doctoran joined in led by Dr. Mian Iftikhar Hussain.  Dr Moeed Pirzada (Executive Director, GAP Advisors) at the very outset explained the historic role ANP has played in the politics of Khyber Pakthunkwa (KPK) and in shaping public opinion of Pashtun intelligentsia and set the context for the roundtable arguing that there has been a growing realization amongst the international community and civil society organizations -who are working to improve quality and access of healthcare in Pakistan- that no meaningful change will occur unless public health itself becomes part of the political agenda. He welcomed the fact that all major political parties of Pakistan are working to bring out health policy visions either as standalone documents or as part of their revised election manifestos. He however pointed out that many in the international community and civil society organizations working on public health issues are concerned with the new coordination challenges that have emerged since 18th amendment; between Pakistan and the international community on one hand and between the center and the provinces on the other and are concerned with the inter-provincial diversity and inter-district diversity of health indices.

Nawaz Sharif’s interesting interaction with American Journalist, Kim Barker, Author of “The Taliban Shuffle” – Some Extracts

Moeed Pirzada |

From “The Taliban Shuffle” by Kim Barker (published by Doubleday):
“With Bhutto gone, I needed to meet the lion of Punjab, or maybe the tiger. No one seemed to know which feline Nawaz Sharif was nicknamed after. Some fans rode around with stuffed toy lions strapped to their cars. Others talked about the tiger of Punjab. By default, Sharif, a former prime minister like Bhutto, had become the most popular opposition leader in the country. He was already the most powerful politician in Punjab, wing nutwhich was the most powerful of Pakistan’s four provinces, home to most of the army leaders and past rulers. Some people described Sharif as the Homer Simpson of Pakistan. Others considered him a rigwing-nut. Still, others figured he could save the country. Sharif was once considered an invention of the establishment, a protégé of the former military dictator in Pakistan, General Zia, but like all politicians here, he had become a creature of himself. During his second term, Sharif built my favorite road in Pakistan, a hundred and seventy miles of paved, multi laned bliss…..……

“One of Sharif’s friends tried to explain him to me:“He might be tilting a little to the right, but he’s not an extremist. Extremists don’t go do hair implants. He also loves singing.” I had attempted to see Sharif when he first tried to return to Pakistan a few months earlier, in September. But commandos had stormed his plane shortly after it landed. Within five hours, he had been shipped back to Saudi Arabia, looking bewildered. Sharif had finally flown home in late November, weeks after Musharraf declared an emergency. Samad had driven me to the airport in the eastern city of Lahore, Sharif’s home territory and the capital of Punjab Province. Tens of thousands of supporters waited behind fences across from the airport entrance. Some shouted for the lion of Punjab—others waved stuffed toy tigers or tiny cardboard Sharif cutouts.

It was a classic botched media event. Reporters were herded into a tiny area in front of the airport, surrounded by barriers covered in barbed wire. Thousands of supporters eventually broke through the fences, screaming and running toward us. More and more people pushed into the journalists’ pen, squeezing everyone and driving us toward certain impalement on the barbed wire. Samad guarded a shorter friend of mine. My translator tried to protect my back. I stood in a basketball stance, an immovable force. But not for long. A Pakistani journalist from Aaj TV pushed past me, elbowed me in the ribs, and shoved me to the side. I pushed back. “You don’t see me standing here?” I said. He shrugged. “Women should not be here anyway. This is a man’s job.” The crowd swayed back and forth, and I tried to keep my balance. A man grabbed my butt, a message to my fist, and before my brain knew it,I managed to punch him in the face. Not professional, not at all, but still somewhat gratifying.That was the chaos just before Nawaz Sharif and his brother walked out of the airport, with me worried about my rear, my position, the barbed wire, a mob, and a potential bomb. Supporters lifted the Sharifs onto their shoulders and spun them around in circles because they had no room to walk. Nawaz Sharif looked shell-shocked. He somehow clambered onto a rickety wooden table next to a taxi stand. The contrast with Bhutto was obvious—she was smooth, a master performer, charisma personified, always in control. Sharif seemed more like a baffled everyman, nondescript and beige. The crush of men waved their arms in the air and shouted that they loved Sharif. He spoke into a microphone, but it was broken and no one could hear anything he said.

Speech over,S harif climbed down from the counter and slipped into a bulletproof black Mercedes,c ourtesy of his good friend,King Abdullah,who had also shipped Sharif back to Pakistan in a Saudi royal plane. Now,six weeks later,it was January 2008. Bhutto was dead and Sharif was the only living senior politician in Pakistan. He had been banned from running in the upcoming parliamentary elections because Musharraf still hated him so much—but he would be a major factor in those elections. Sharif was trying to appear like a figure of reconciliation,above all the politics. He publicly cried after Bhutto’s death,and talked about how she had called him for his fifty-eighth birthday,two days before she was killed. I called everyone I knew to try to get an interview.

“You only get fifteen minutes with Mian Sahib,” Sharif’s press aide finally told me,referring to Sharif by his honorary title. “Maybe twenty at the most.” I flew into Lahore on a Friday morning,and we drove for an hour toward the town of Raiwind and Sharif’s palatial home and palatial grounds. The closer we got,the more Sharif. The place may as well have been called Nawaz Land,given the amusement-park feel and the fact that his name and picture were on everything,from the hospital to giant billboards. Everywhere I looked,Sharif—amiable,slightly pudgy,topped with hair plugs—stared at me like the Cheshire cat. Guards checked me at the gate,searching my bag meticulously. The grounds of Raiwind resembled a cross between a golf course and a zoo,with several football fields of manicured grass and wild animals in cages,leading up to a miniature palace that looked slightly like a wedding cake,with different layers and trim that resembled frosting. The driveway was big enough for a limousine to execute a U-turn. I walked inside and was told to wait.

The inside of the house appeared to have been designed by Saudi Arabia—a hodge-podge of crystal chandeliers,silk curtains,gold accents,marble. A verse of the Holy Quran and a carpet with the ninety-nine names of God hung on the walls of Sharif’s receiving room,along with photographs of Sharif with King Abdullah and slain former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri. Finally I was summoned. “Kim,” Sharif’s media handler said,gesturing toward the ground. “Come.” I hopped up and walked toward the living room,past two raggedy stuffed lions with rose petals near their feet. So maybe Sharif was the lion of Punjab. Inside the room,Sharif stood up,wearing a finely pressed salwar kameez,a navy vest,and a natty scarf. He shook my hand and offered me a seat in an ornate chair. The sitting room was a study in pink,rose,and gold,with golden curlicues on various lighting fixtures and couches,and crystal vases everywhere. Many of the knickknacks were gifts from world leaders. His press aide tapped his watch,looked at me,and raised his eyebrows.

I got the message and proceeded with my questions,as fast as I could. But it soon became clear that this would be unlike any interview I had ever done. “You’re the only senior opposition leader left in Pakistan. How are you going to stay safe while campaigning?” In Pakistan,campaigns were not run through TV,and pressing the flesh was a job requirement. Candidates won over voters by holding rallies of tens and hundreds of thousands of people. Even though Sharif was not personally running,his appearance would help win votes for anyone in his party. Sharif looked at me,sighed,and shook his head. “I don’t know. It’s a good question. What do you think,Kim?” “I don’t know. I’m not the former prime minister of Pakistan. So what will you do?” “Really,I don’t know. What do you think?” This put me in an awkward position—giving security advice to Nawaz Sharif.

“Well,it’s got to be really difficult. You have these elections coming up. You can’t just sit here at home.” “What should I do?” he asked. “I can’t run a campaign sitting in my house,on the television.” I had to find a way to turn this back on him. “It’s interesting,” I said. “You keep asking me questions about what I think. And it seems like you do that a lot—ask other people questions. It seems like you’re also willing to change your mind,if circumstances change.” “I do take people’s advice,” he said. “I believe in consultation.” After twenty minutes,Sharif’s aide started twitching. I fired off my questions about Musharraf,the man Sharif had named army chief,only to be overthrown by him. “I do not actually want to say much about Musharraf. He must step down and allow democracy. He is so impulsive,so erratic.”

“Come on. You named this man army chief,then tried to fire him,then he overthrew you and sent you into exile,and now you’re back. What do you think about him?” Sharif nodded,then tried to duck the question. “Appointing Mr. Musharraf as chief of army staff—that’s my biggest mistake.” I stood up. Sharif’s aide was already standing. “I should probably be going,” I said. “Thanks very much for your time.” “Yes,Mian Sahib’s schedule is very busy,” Sharif’s handler agreed. “It’s all right,” Sharif said. “She can ask a few more questions.” I sat down. I had whipped through most of my important questions,so I recycled them.

I asked him whether he was a fundamentalist. Sharif dismissed the idea,largely by pointing to his friendship with the Clintons. I tried to leave again,fearing I was overstaying my welcome. But Sharif said I could ask more questions. “One more,” I said,wary of Sharif’s aide. Then I asked the question that was really on my mind. “Which are you—the lion or the tiger?” Sharif didn’t even blink. “I am the tiger,” he said. “But why do some people call you the lion?” “I do not know. I am the tiger.” “But why do you have two stuffed lions?” “They were a gift. I like them.”……

“Once home from Thailand,I picked up my Pakistan cell phone from my colleague,who had borrowed it. “So,you got a few phone calls,” she said. “One interesting one.” “Who?” “Nawaz Sharif,” she said. I had almost forgotten about the story—I had mentioned his hair plugs,twice,and said Sharif’s genial personality made him seem more like a house cat than a tiger or lion. Ouch. “Oh. Him. What did he say?” I asked. “He wanted to talk to you. I said you were on vacation,and he told me to tell you that you wrote a very nice story,and he liked it. “Really?” Well,that was good news,and meant Sharif was remarkably down to earth. Clearly he had a sense of humor. Bhutto had certainly never called after any story I wrote. I soon called Sharif,to see if I could campaign with him. “You’re the most dangerous man in Pakistan,the top living opposition leader,” I told him.

“I want to see what it’s like to be around you.” “Welcome anytime,Kim,” he said. In mid-February,I met Sharif at the government’s Frontier House,just outside the judges’ enclave,where the country’s former top justices were still under house arrest. Eventually,after slipping through the mob,I climbed into Sharif’s bulletproof black SUV,surrounded by similar SUVs,and we took off,heading for two speeches outside the capital. We left Islamabad. One of Sharif’s security officers somehow sent us down narrow,bumpy dirt roads,where we ended up in traffic jams. Not encouraging. “That was bad planning,” Sharif muttered. He sat in the front passenger seat. I sat behind the driver,next to Sharif’s aide. After various detours,we ended up at the dirt field where Sharif would speak. Thousands of people waited. He was mobbed when he tried to step out of his vehicle,and his bodyguards bounced around like pinballs,trying to get in between well-wishers and their charge. I stood near the dusty stage,but I didn’t want to walk out. Despite Bhutto’s killing,the security at this event resembled that of a high-school pep rally.

The podium didn’t even have a bulletproof glass screen,which was supposed to be there. “I don’t know where it is,” Sharif told me,shrugging. “Sometimes the police give it to me,sometimes they give it to someone else.” Onstage he didn’t seem to care about potential attacks,thundering against dictatorship to the crowd. But I did. This country made me feel insecure,much more than Afghanistan. We drove to the next rally. I looked at my BlackBerry and spotted one very interesting e-mail—a Human Rights Watch report,quoting a taped conversation from November between the country’s pro-Musharraf attorney general and an unnamed man.

The attorney general had apparently been talking to a reporter,and while on that call,took another call,where he talked about vote rigging. The reporter had recorded the entire conversation. I scanned through the e-mail. “Nawaz,” I said. I had somehow slipped into calling the former prime minister by his first name. “have to hear this.” I then performed a dramatic reading of the message in full,culminating in the explosive direct quote from the attorney general,recorded the month before Bhutto was killed and just before Sharif flew home:“Leave Nawaz Sharif … I think Nawaz Sharif will not take part in the election … If he does take part,he will be in trouble. If Benazir takes part she too will be in trouble … They will massively rig to get their own people to win. If you can get a ticket from these guys,take it … If Nawaz Sharif does not return himself,then Nawaz Sharif has some advantage. If he comes himself,even if after the elections rather than before … Yes …” It was unclear what the other man was saying,but Human Rights Watch said the attorney general appeared to be advising him to leave Sharif’s party and get a ticket from “these guys,” the pro-Musharraf party,the massive vote riggers. Sharif’s aide stared at me openmouthed. “Is that true? I can’t believe that.” “It’s from Human Rights Watch,” I said. “There’s apparently a tape recording. Pretty amazing.” Sharif just looked at me. “How can you get a text message that long on your telephone?” “It’s an e-mail,” I said,slightly shocked that Sharif was unconcerned about what I had just said. “This is a BlackBerry phone. You can get e-mail on it.” “Ah,e-mail,” he said. “I must look into this BlackBerry.”

Sharif soon whipped out a comb,pulled the rearview mirror toward him,and combed his hair. I watched,fascinated. His hair plugs were in some ways genius—not enough to actually cover his bald spot but enough to make him seem less bald. He had the perfect hair transplant for a Pakistani politician who wanted to look younger while still appearing like a man of the people. But with every pull of the comb,I counted the potential cost—$1,000,$2,000. At the next speech,Sharif spoke in front of a metal podium with a bulletproof glass screen that ended three inches below the top of his head. I wondered if Musharraf was trying to kill him. The election was three days away. And as much as Sharif seemed to be slightly simple,he was also increasingly popular,largely because of his support of the deposed judges. While Bhutto’s widower campaigned on the memory of his dead wife,Sharif campaigned against Musharraf and for justice. Bhutto’s party would win the most votes.

But I thought Sharif would perform better than anyone suspected. The day of the election,two journalist friends and I drove to polling stations in Islamabad and neighboring Rawalpindi. Everywhere we heard the same name:Nawaz Sharif. It was rather spooky. At one point,we found a man who had spent the entire night cutting up white blankets,gluing them to his new car,and then painting them with tiger stripes. He finished the project off with black-feather trim. “What are you going to do if it rains?” I asked the man. “God willing,it won’t,” he said. I snapped a photograph with my BlackBerry. By the end of the day,the results were clear—Musharraf’s party had received barely any votes. Secular parties had triumphed over religious ones. Bhutto’s party had won the most seats,as predicted. But Sharif’s party had won the second-highest amount of votes,a surprise to many Western observers. Through the election,Sharif had exacted revenge on Musharraf. And Bhutto’s party needed Sharif to have enough seats to run the country. After more than eight years of political irrelevance,Sharif was back. I sent him a text message and asked him to call. A few hours later,he did,thrilled with his victory.

“I saw a car today,where a man had glued blankets to it and painted it like a tiger,” I told him at one point. “Really?” he asked. “Yeah. It was a tiger car.” He paused. “What did you think of the tiger car,Kim? Did you like the tiger car?” Weird question. I gave an appropriate answer. “Who doesn’t like a tiger car?”

“Capping the chaos,Nawaz Sharif then dropped out of the government. This shocked me—he had repeatedly threatened to end his party’s support for the coalition,but I didn’t think he would,as this chess move would in effect checkmate himself,eliminating any power he had. I called Sharif for the first time in months,and he invited me over to the Punjab House in Islamabad. He had always been unfailingly polite and soft-spoken with me. He seemed old-fashioned,speaking my name as a full sentence and rarely using contractions.

This time,in a large banquet hall filled with folding chairs and a long table,Sharif told his aides that he would talk to me alone. At the time,I barely noticed. We talked about Zardari,but he spoke carefully and said little of interest,constantly glancing at my tape recorder like it was radioactive. Eventually,he nodded toward it. “Can you turn that off?” he asked. “Sure,” I said,figuring he wanted to tell me something off the record. “So. Do you have a friend,Kim?” Sharif asked. I was unsure what he meant. “I have a lot of friends,” I replied. “No. Do you have a friend?” I figured it out. “You mean a boyfriend?” “Yes.” I looked at Sharif. I had two options—lie,or tell the truth. And because I wanted to see where this line of questioning was going,I told the truth. “I had a boyfriend. We recently broke up.” I nodded my head stupidly,as if to punctuate this thought. “Why?” Sharif asked. “Was he too boring for you? Not fun enough?” “Um. No. It just didn’t work out.” “Oh. I cannot believe you do not have a friend,” Sharif countered. “No. Nope. I don’t. I did.”

“Do you want me to find one for you?” Sharif asked. To recap:The militants were gaining strength along the border with Afghanistan and staging increasingly bold attacks in the country’s cities. The famed Khyber Pass,linking Pakistan and Afghanistan,was now too dangerous to drive. The country appeared as unmoored and directionless as a headless chicken. And here was Sharif,offering to find me a friend. Thank God the leaders of Pakistan had their priorities straight. “Sure. Why not?” I said. The thought of being fixed up on a date by the former prime minister of Pakistan,one of the most powerful men in the country and,at certain points,the world,proved irresistible. It had true train-wreck potential.

“What qualities are you looking for in a friend?” he asked. “Tall. Funny. Smart.” I envisioned a blind date at a restaurant in Lahore over kebabs and watermelon juice with one of Sharif’s sidekicks,some man with a mustache,Sharif lurking in the background as chaperone. “Hmmm. Tall may be tough. You are very tall,and most Pakistanis are not.” Sharif stood,walked past the banquet table toward the windows,and looked out over the capital. He pondered,before turning back toward me. “What do you mean by smart?” he asked. “You know. Smart. Quick. Clever.”“Oh,clever.” He nodded,thought for a second. “But you do not want cunning. You definitely do not want a cunning friend.” He looked out the window. It seemed to me that he was thinking of Bhutto’s widower,Zardari,his onetime ally and now rival,a man universally considered cunning at business who many felt had outsmarted Sharif in their recent political tango. “No. Who wants cunning?” “Anything else?” he asked. “What about his appearance?”

“I don’t really care. Not fat. Athletic.” We shook hands,and I left. In all my strange interviews with Sharif,that definitely was the strangest.……

“The next night,Samad drove some friends and me to a dinner inside the diplomatic enclave. My phone beeped with a text message from a number with a British international code. “Hello,Kim,I arrived London yesterday. Congratulations on AZ becoming the new president,how is he doing and how have the people taken it? I am working on the project we discussed and will have the result soon. Best wishes and warm regards.” I had no idea who sent the message. My brother? Sean? No,this sender clearly knew me from Pakistan. And what was the project? What had I discussed? I read the text message to my friends,and we pondered the sender. Then,finally,I remembered reading that Nawaz Sharif had flown to London so that his sick wife could have some tests. “Is this Nawaz?” I replied. “You are correct,” he responded.The project. That was funny. Everyone in the car,even the man from the U.S. embassy,agreed that I needed to see this through. And I thought—well,we all did—how hilarious it would be if Sharif actually found an option that worked. ……

“I flew to India to write some stories. Nawaz Sharif asked for my number there. He needed to talk about something important,outside Pakistan. One early evening,he called from London. Sharif wondered whether I would be back in Pakistan before Eid al-Fitr,the Islamic holiday at the end of Ramadan. Maybe,I told him. He planned to go to Pakistan for a day,and then to Saudi Arabia for four days. “I am working on the project,” he said. “Day and night,I’m sure,” I replied. Sharif said the real reason he was calling was to warn me that the phones were tapped in Pakistan. “Be very careful,” he said. “Your phones are tapped. My phones are tapped. Do you know a man named Rehman Malik? He is giving the orders to do this,maybe at the behest of Mr. Zardari.” Everyone knew Rehman Malik,a slightly menacing figure who was the acting interior minister of Pakistan. He was known for making random word associations in press conferences and being unable to utter a coherent sentence. He also had slightly purple hair. “Is this new?” I asked. “Hasn’t it always been this way? “Well,yes. But it has gotten worse in the past two or three months.” So true. He had a solution—he would buy me a new phone.

And give me a new number,but a number so precious that I could only give it to my very close friends,who had to get new phones and numbers as well. Very tempting,but I told him no. He was,after all,the former prime minister of Pakistan. I couldn’t accept any gifts from him.“Sounds complicated. It’s not necessary. And you can’t buy me a phone.” He said I needed to be careful. We ended our conversation,and he promised to work on the project. “Don’t be—what is it you say? Don’t be naughty,” he said before hanging up. Naughty? Who said that? The conversation was slightly worrying. I thought of Sharif as a Punjabi matchmaker determined to find me a man,not as anyone who talked naughty to me. ……

“I planned a trip to Afghanistan,where the politics were much less murky,where the suicide bombers were much less effective,to write about alleged negotiations with the Taliban. That’s why I had to see Nawaz Sharif again. Emissaries from the Afghan government and former Taliban bigwigs had flown to Saudi Arabia for the feasts that marked the end of Ramadan. But they had another goal. Afghan officials had been hoping that the influential Saudi royal family would moderate negotiations between their battered government and the resurgent militants. Sharif,in Saudi Arabia at the time,was rumored to have been at those meetings. That made sense. He was close to the Saudi king. He had supported the Afghan Taliban,when the regime was in power.

I called Sharif and told him why I wanted to see him. “Most welcome,Kim,” he said. “Anytime.” We arranged for a lunch on a Saturday in October—I was due to fly to Kabul two days later. Samad and I decided to drive the five hours from Islamabad to Raiwind instead of flying. Samad showed up on time,but I overslept,having been up late the night before. I hopped out of bed and rifled through my Islamic clothes for something suitable because I liked to dress conservatively when interviewing Pakistani politicians. I yanked out a red knee-length top from India that had dancing couples embroidered on it. Potentially ridiculous,but the nicest clean one I had. We left Islamabad. “You’re gonna have to hurry,Samad,” I said. “Possible?” “Kim,possible,” he said. It always cracked me up when I got him to say that. We made good time south,but got lost at some point on the narrow roads to Raiwind. Sharif sent out an escort vehicle with flashing lights to meet us. We breezed through security—we actually didn’t even slow down—and I forced Samad to stop in the middle of the long driveway leading up to Sharif’s palace. I had forgotten to comb my hair or put on any makeup. I turned the rearview mirror toward me,smoothed down my messy hair with my hands,and put on some lipstick. Twenty seconds. “Good enough,” I pronounced my effort,and flipped the mirror back to Samad. We reached the imposing driveway.

Sharif actually waited in front of his massive front doors for me,wearing a blue suit,slightly snug around his waist. He clasped his hands in front of his belt. It was clear that our meeting was important. Sharif was surrounded by several lackeys,who all smiled tight-lipped before looking down at the ground. I jumped out of the car,sweaty after the ride,panicked because I was late. I shook Nawaz’s hand—he had soft fingers,manicured nails,baby-like skin that had probably never seen a callous. “Hello,Kim,” he said. “Hey,Nawaz. Sorry I’m late.” In the sitting room,I immediately turned on my tape recorder and rattled off questions. Was Sharif at the negotiations? What was happening? He denied being at any meetings,despite press reports to the contrary. I pushed him. He denied everything. I wondered why he let me drive all this way,if he planned to tell me nothing. At least I’d get free food. He looked at my tape recorder and asked me to turn it off. Eventually I obliged. Then Sharif brought up his real reason for inviting me to lunch. “Kim. I have come up with two possible friends for you.” At last. “Who?” He waited a second,looked toward the ceiling,then seemingly picked the top name from his subconscious. “The first is Mr. Z.” That was disappointing. Sharif definitely was not taking this project seriously. “Zardari? No way. That will never happen,” I said. “What’s wrong with Mr. Zardari?” Sharif asked. “Do you not find him attractive?”

Bhutto’s widower,Asif Ali Zardari,was slightly shorter than me and sported slicked-back hair and a mustache,which he was accused of dying black right after his wife was killed,right before his first press conference. On many levels,I did not find Zardari attractive. I would have preferred celibacy. But that wasn’t the point. Perhaps I could use this as a teaching moment. “He is the president of Pakistan. I am a journalist. That would never happen.”

“He is single.” Very true—but I didn’t think that was a good enough reason. “I can call him for you,” Sharif insisted. I’m fairly certain he was joking.

“I’m sure he has more important things to deal with,” I replied.

“OK. No Mr. Z. The second option,I will discuss with you later,” he said. That did not sound promising. We adjourned our meeting for lunch in the dining room,wh ere two places were set at a long wooden table that appeared to seat seventy. We sat in the middle of the table,facing each other over a large display of fake orange flowers. The food was brought out in a dozen courses of silver dishes—deep-fried prawns,mutton stew,deep-fried fish,bread,a mayonnaise salad with a few vegetables for color,chicken curry,lamb. Dish after dish,each carried by waiters in traditional white outfits with long dark gray vests. Like the good Punjabi that Sharif was,he kept pushing food on me. “Have more prawns. You like prawns,right?” He insisted on seconds and thirds. It felt like a make-believe meal.

I didn’t know which fork to use,not that it mattered in a culture where it was fine to eat with your hands,but the combination of the wealth,the empty seats,and the unspoken tiger in the room made me want to run screaming from the table. I needed to get out of there. “I have to go.”“First,come for a walk with me outside,around the grounds. I want to show you Raiwind.” “No. I have to go. I have to go to Afghanistan tomorrow.” Sharif ignored that white lie and started to talk about where he wanted to take me. “I would like to take you for a ride in the country,and take you for lunch at a restaurant in Lahore,but because of my position,I cannot.” “That’s OK. I have to go.” “I am still planning to buy you a phone. Which do you like Nokia,iPhone?” So now he knew what a BlackBerry was. But I would not bend. “You can’t buy me a phone,” I said. “Why not?” “You’re the former prime minister of Pakistan. No.” “Which do you like?” He kept pressing,wouldn’t let it go. BlackBerry,Nokia,iPhone,over and over. That scene from The Wizard of Oz started running through my head:Lions and tigers and bears,oh my!“BlackBerry,Nokia,or iPhone,Kim?” “The iPhone,” I said,because I already had a Nokia and a BlackBerry. “But I still can’t take one from you.” As we left,Samad insisted on getting our picture taken with Sharif. Samad was a Bhutto man,which meant he should have been a Zardari man,but increasingly,like many of Bhutto’s followers in Pakistan,Samad had grown disenchanted with Zardari. And increasingly,Samad liked Sharif. Everyone liked Sharif. Behind the scenes,the tiger of Punjab was growing very powerful. His decision to break with Zardari over the issue of restoring the judges had proved to be smart. As Zardari’s government floundered and flip-flopped,Sharif looked more and more like an elder statesman. Regardless,I told my boss it was no longer a good idea for me to see Sharif. He was married,older,rich,and powerful. As a pleasant-looking,pedigree-lacking American with hair issues,I was an extremely unlikely paramour. But Sharif had ended our visit with a dangling proposition—the mysterious identity of a second potential friend. I decided to stick to a tapped-phone relationship. ……

“And I knew,with plenty of reservations,that I needed to go to Lahore because of Nawaz Sharif. If anyone knew the right Faridkot,he would. That Friday,Pakistan seemed to have launched its typical crackdown on the charity—in other words,lots of noise,little action. A charity billboard in the heart of Lahore proclaimed:“We can sacrifice our lives to preserve the holiness of the Prophet.”

I sent my translator into the group’s mosque because I wasn’t allowed. There,flanked by three armed guards,the founder of Jamaat-ud-Dawa and Lash preached to about ten thousand men. His bluster was typical Islamic militant stuff—about sacrifice,about Eid al-Adha,the upcoming religious festival where devout Muslims would sacrifice an animal and give part of it to the poor. The holiday honored Ibrahim,or as Jews and Christians knew him,Abraham. “Sacrifice is not just to slaughter animals in the name of God,” the founder said. “Sacrifice also means leaving your country in the name of God. It means sacrificing your life in the name of God.” His meaning seemed fairly clear.

Meanwhile,the spokesman for the charity tried to rewrite history. He said the founder was barely involved with Lash—despite founding it—and insisted Lash was now based in India. The spokesman also drew a vague line in the sand,more like a smudge—he said the charity talked about jihad,but did not set up any training camps for jihad. The man who ran the ISI when Lash was founded denied having anything to do with the group. “Such blatant lies,” he told me,adding later that Jamaat-ud-Dawa was “a good lot of people.”

These men seemed convinced of their magical powers,of their ability to wave a wand and erase a reporter’s memory. This obfuscation was not even up to Pakistan’s usual level. With a heavy heart,I knew I needed to see Nawaz Sharif. I figured I might be able to get something out of him that he didn’t know he wasn’t supposed to tell me—as former prime minister,he’d certainly be told what was happening,but because he wasn’t a government official,he wouldn’t necessarily know that he was supposed to keep the information quiet. But this time,I planned to bring my translator along,a male chaperone. Samad drove our teamout to Raiwind. I sat in the back of the car,writing up my story about the charity on my computer,trying not to think about what Sharif might try to pull this visit. Eventually,we walked inside Sharif’s palace.

Sharif looked at my translator,then me,clearly confused. He invited us both into his computer room,where we sat on a couch. Sharif sat on a chair,near a desk. When he answered my questions,he stared at my translator. My translator,embarrassed to be there,stared at the ground. Sharif told me the right Faridkot—the one in Okara district,just a couple of hours from Lahore. He gave me the phone number for the provincial police chief. He told me what Indian and Pakistani authorities had told him about the lone surviving militant.

For us,this was big news—a senior Pakistani confirming what the government had publicly denied:The attackers were from Pakistan. “This boy says,‘I belong to Okara,and I left my home some years ago,’ ” Sharif said,adding that he had been told that the young man would come home for a few days every six months or a year. “He cut off his links with his parents,” Sharif also told me. “The relationship between him and his parents was not good. Then he disappeared.”

Once the interview was finished,Sharif looked at me. “Can you ask your translator to leave?” he asked. “I need to talk to you.” My translator looked at me with a worried forehead wrinkle. “It’s OK,” I said. He left. Sharif then looked at my tape recorder. “Can you turn that off?” I obliged. “I have to go,” I said. “I have to write a story.” He ignored me. “I have bought you an iPhone,” he said. “I can’t take it.”“Why not? It is a gift.” “No. It’s completely unethical,you’re a source.” “But we are friends,right?” I had forgotten how Sharif twisted the word “friend.” “Sure,we’re friendly,but you’re still the former prime minister of Pakistan and I can’t take an iPhone from you,” I said. “But we are friends,” he countered. “I don’t accept that. I told you I was buying you an iPhone.” “I told you I couldn’t take it. And we’re not those kind of friends.” He tried a new tactic. “Oh,I see.

Your translator is here,and you do not want him to see me give you an iPhone. That could be embarrassing for you.” Exasperated,I agreed. “That’s it.” He then offered to meet me the next day,at a friend’s apartment in Lahore,to give me the iPhone and have tea. No,I said. I was going to Faridkot. Sharif finally came to the point. “Kim. I am sorry I was not able to find you a friend. I tried,but I failed.” He shook his head,looked genuinely sad about the failure of the project. “That’s OK,” I said. “Really. I don’t really want a friend right now. I am perfectly happy without a friend. I want to be friendless.” He paused. And then,finally,the tiger of Punjab pounced. “I would like to be your friend.” I didn’t even let him get the words out. “No. Absolutely not. Not going to happen.”

“Hear me out.” He held his hand toward me to silence my negations as he made his pitch. He could have said anything—that he was a purported billionaire who had built my favorite road in Pakistan, that he could buy me a power plant or build me a nuclear weapon. But he opted for honesty. “I know,I’m not as tall as you’d like,” Sharif explained. “I’m not as fit as you’d like. I’m fat, and I’m old. But I would still like to be your friend.” “No,” I said. “No way.” He then offered me a job running his hospital, a job I was eminently unqualified to perform. “It’s a huge hospital,” he said. “You’d be very good at it.” He said he would only become prime minister again if I were his secretary. I thought about it for a few seconds—after all, I would probably soon be out of a job. But no.

The new position’s various positions would not be worth it. Eventually, I got out of the tiger’s grip, but only by promising that I would consider his offer. Otherwise, he wouldn’t let me leave. I jumped into the car, pulled out my tape recorder, and recited our conversation. Samad shook his head. My translator put his head in his hands. “I’m embarrassed for my country,” he said. After that, I knew I could never see Sharif again. I was not happy about this—I liked Sharif. In the back of my mind, maybe I had hoped he would come through with a possible friend, or that we could have kept up our banter, without an iPhone lurking in the closet. But now I saw him as just another sad case,a recycled has-been who squandered his country’s adulation and hope, who thought to hit on a foreign journalist was a smart move. Which it clearly wasn’t.

The next morning, Samad drove us to Faridkot. As soon as we pulled into town,dozens of men in cream-colored salwar kameezes flanked our car. One identified himself as the mayor—he denied all knowledge of the surviving militant and his parents. Other Pakistani journalists showed up—we had all found out about the same time that this was the Mumbai assailant’s hometown,a dusty village of ten thousand people in small brick houses along brick and dirt paths. My translator said many of the cream-attired men here were ISI. Another journalist recognized an ISI commander. Their job:to deny everything and get rid of us. ……

“I packed up my belongings and got ready to fly home. The day I planned to execute my exit strategy, my phone rang. And the caller was the other eccentric older man who had dominated my time, from the other side of the border. Nawaz Sharif. His timing was always impeccable. “Is this Kim?” he asked. “Yes,” I said, shoving Afghan tourism guides from the 1970s into a suitcase. I was hesitant, unsure of what he wanted. “So. It’s been a long time,” he said, awkwardly. “What are your plans to come to Pakistan?” “Actually, I’m moving back to the U.S. New York, in fact. I’m leaving in a few hours.”

“Oh, congratulations. I will have to come see you when I’m in New York,” he said. “That would be great,” I replied. “We’re still friends, right?” he asked, tentatively. “Always,” I said. “We’ll stay friends, right?” he said. “Sure.” We said goodbye. I had about the same level of intention of being friends with Nawaz Sharif as I did with Sam Zell. But I figured I could just end our relationship through the inevitable ennui of distance and time,and through the likelihood that he would never get his hands on my U.S. number. (He was more resourceful than I thought).

 

Moeed Pirzada is prominent TV Anchor & commentator; he studied international relations at Columbia Univ, New York and law at London School of Economics. Twitter: MoeedNj. The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Global Village Space’s editorial policy. This piece was first published in Moeed Pirzada’s official page. It has been reproduced with permission.

Can the Media Ask Difficult Questions, November 03, 2012, Islamabad

0

The aim of this Roundtable was to raise awareness for the Media on the role it could play on various issues of concern to the public in this case the focus being public health.  This is particularly important since the rise and expansion of Pakistan’s electronic and print media and its ability to ask difficult questions has led to changes in attitudes and for it to take public officials to task on differing issues of corruption, nepotism and inefficiency.

In many parts of the world politics is shaped around issues of public health; media grills the politicians on their health policy positioning and fate of political parties is decided on whether their plans for public health are making sense? Whether such plans are practical to implement? And how funds or resources for them will be mobilized? But no such debates are held in Pakistan. So it is only natural that those professionals and communities working to improve the quality and access of health care wonder why it is so. Why such apathy from politicians and especially from media? The meeting was held with media professionals involved media figures from both electronic and print media from the cities of Peshawar, Islamabad, Lahore and Multan.

Potential of Natural Resources and the Polices of Agreements in Balochistan, The Centre for Research and Security Studies (CRSS), 22 October, 2012

0

Dr. Pirzada participated in a panel discussion “Potential of natural resources and the polices of agreements in Balochistan” organized by “The Centre for Research and Security Studies (CRSS)” on 22nd October, 2012. Other Panelist included: Syed Naveed Qamar, Federal Minister for Water and Power, Wazir Ahmad Jogezai, Former Senate Deputy Speaker, Senator Mir Hasil Bizenjo, VP, National Party, Dr. Shaukat Hameed (SOPREST), Sheikh Asad Rahman, SUNGI Development Foundation and  Dr. Saif-ul-Islam.

Roundtable with Pakistan Tehreek-e- Insaaf (PTI) on their Public Health Policy,17 October 2012, Islamabad

0

This roundtable with Pakistan Tehreq-e- Insaaf (PTI) was held by Governance and Policy Advisors (GAP), with the support of John Snow Research and Training Institute (JSI/TAUH), to engage major political parties and media before the forthcoming elections of 2013.  The objective of the dialogue is to brief policymakers and those who shape public opinion on the challenges facing public health and suggest possible solutions as seen by health community and civil society organizations; and to assert the need to turn these issues into political priorities and advocate with political parties to make these priorities part of the manifestos of political parties before the elections in Pakistan in 2013.  The PTI team was led by Mr Jahangir Tareen (Head of Policy Unit, PTI), other members present included Mr Asad Omer, Mr Shafqat Mehmood, Dr Yasmin Rashid and Dr Humayun Mohmand.  JSI and its international partners were led by Dr. Nabeela Ali (Chief of Party JSI/TAUH) and among others she was joined by Ms. Katherine Crawford (Health Office Director, USAID Pakistan), Mr. Desmond Whyms (Senior Health Advisor, Dfid), Dr. Sania Nishtar (Heart File) and Mr. Muzaffar Mehmood Qureshi, Director Green Star, the event was moderated by Dr Moeed Pirzada, (Executive Director, GAP).

Mr Jahangir Tareen (Head of Policy Unit, PTI) took the lead in outlining PTI’s health vision; saying that PTI has given a deep thought to the public health issues facing Pakistan, and they have reached this conclusion that a radical change has to take place in the way Pakistan is governed.  There is a consensus on the proposed policies within the party because these had been discussed throughout the party hierarchy. Dr Moeed Pirzada (Executive Director, GAP) welcomed the “Health Policy Vision” and the “Five Point Agenda” presented by PTI and clarified that all vision statements are like maps to guide policy prescriptions and cannot be perfect; the purpose of the meeting is therefore not to point out shortcomings of PTI’s Health Vision but to understand their political perspective and to offer help and technical support from all those organizations who have been striving to improve the quality and access of health care in Pakistan and other parts of the developing world.

Media for Peace, SDPI & Search for Common Ground (SFCG), Islamabad, 10 October, 2012

0

Dr. Pirzada moderated a seminar, “Media for Peace” organized by SDPI & Search for Common Ground (SFCG) at Islamabad on 10th October, 2012. Panelist included: Danish Ambassador Ole E. Mosby, Ammara Durrani, Country Director, SFCG and Dr. Abid Qaiyum Suleri, SDPI.

Christian-Muslim marriage…!

Moeed Pirzada |

I realized that most who have commented on my post of “Christian-Muslim Marriage” are perhaps not aware of the context of the story and why I raised the question. The facts are (read Express Tribune below) that a 23 year old Muslim woman in a village in Narowal has eloped with a Christian man of 25 and according to the Court record and Police this Muslim woman has certified in court that she has gone off her free will and she has married this young boy.

Now a Mullah, Amjad Farooqi, along with other goons has landed upon both families; he has forced the Muslim family to register a FIR against the Christian man for abduction of the daughter and has snatched the cattle of the poor Christian family and is selling their cows one by one to create “funds” for the recovery of the Christian Man so that he can be punished for plotting his marriage with the Muslim woman. Could things be more ridiculous in our beloved homeland?

Holy Quran does not expressly forbid Muslim women to get married to other men of the book (Christian & Jews) though there is an interpretation by Muslim Jurists that Muslim Woman are not allowed to marry even Christians and Jews

Questions which we need to address are: When Hindu girls convert to get married to Muslim men we think it’s an act of love or bravery (though Hindu parents and many in India see that as a conspiracy of majority against the minority) but if a Muslim woman wants to get married to a non-Muslim, even if a follower of the Holy book, we are up in arms as if this will single act will destroy our whole social order; Do we need to present more evidence of our double standards to the whole world? Does the actions of this Maulana helping our cause against the blasphemous film or further tarnishing our image in the world as intolerant people?

Holy Quran does not expressly forbid Muslim women to get married to other men of the book (Christian & Jews) though there is an interpretation by Muslim Jurists that Muslim Woman are not allowed to marry even Christians and Jews; many on this Forum are afraid to even raise questions about the validity of this “interpretation” of our religion by Jurists, but then how do we say that in Islam – unlike Christianity- we don’t have a Clergy and we the Muslims can approach Allah directly and follow the right path without the help of the clergy? if we are so afraid of the hold of Mullahs and clergy on our minds, if we are so dependent upon them, then how do we say that Islam is simple and logical? How convincing do we sound to the world outside?

Even if the Muslim girl’s action of marrying a Christian man is not right according to Mullahs and Jurists, what about the civil rights of these two citizens of Pakistani State? ie the Muslim Woman & the Christian man, the two Pakistani citizens? So all those who are blowing hot and cold on this issue, do they then support Mullahs running the Pakistani state? How can a Mullah and his gang impose their interpretation upon families in Narowal? What about Quaid-e-Azam’s famous statement that “it will not be a theocratic state to be run by priests..”?

if we are so afraid of the hold of Mullahs and clergy on our minds, if we are so dependent upon them, then how do we say that Islam is simple and logical? How convincing do we sound to the world outside?

Are we then arguing that in Pakistani law women are inferior to men? minorities have very limited rights and choices? So a Pakistani Christian who belongs to a small minority of 2-3% population cannot marry among the 97% community then surely he has far less rights even in theory, forget about practice..? do these things not prick our conscience?

How all this coming at this time when we were struggling for the last 2-3 weeks to convince the world to be more understanding of our concerns and sensitives affects our moral case against hate speech?

 

Moeed Pirzada is prominent TV Anchor & commentator; he studied international relations at Columbia Univ, New York and law at London School of Economics. Twitter: MoeedNj. The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Global Village Space’s editorial policy. This piece was first published in Moeed Pirzada’s official page. It has been reproduced with permission.

Christian-Muslim Marriage…!

0

Moeed Pirzada | FB Blog |

I realized that most who have commented on my post of “Christian-Muslim Marriage” are perhaps not aware of the context of the story and why I raised the question. The facts are (read Express Tribune below) that a 23 year old Muslim woman in a village in Narowal has eloped with a Christian man of 25 and according to the Court record and Police this Muslim woman has certified in court that she has gone of her free will and she has married this young boy.

Now a Mullah, Amjad Farooqi, along with other goons has landed upon both families; he has forced the Muslim family to register a FIR against the Christian man for abduction of the daughter and has snatched the cattle of the poor Christian family and is selling their cows one by one to create “funds” for the recovery of the Christian Man so that he can be punished for plotting his marriage with the Muslim woman. Could things be more ridiculous in our beloved homeland?

Questions which we need to address are: When Hindu girls convert to get married to Muslim men we think it’s an act of love or bravery (though Hindu parents and many in India see that as a conspiracy of majority against the minority) but if a Muslim woman wants to get married to a non-Muslim, even if a follower of the Holy book, we are up in arms as if this will single act will destroy our whole social order; Do we need to present more evidence of our double standards to the whole world? Does the actions of this Maulana helping our cause against the blasphemous film or further tarnishing our image in the world as intolerant people?

Holy Quran does not expressly forbids Muslim women to get married to other men of the book (Christian & Jews) though there is an interpretation by Muslim Jurists that Muslim Woman are not allowed to marry even Christians and Jews; many on this Forum are afraid to even raise questions about the validity of this “interpretation” of our religion by Jurists, but then how do we say that in Islam – unlike Christianity- we don’t have a Clergy and we the Muslims can approach Allah directly and follow the right path without the help of the clergy? if we are so afraid of the hold of Mullahs and clergy on our minds, if we are so dependent upon them, then how do we say that Islam is simple and logical? How convincing do we sound to the world outside?

Even if the Muslim girl’s action of marrying a Christian man is not right according to Mullahs and Jurists, what about the civil rights of these two citizens of Pakistani State? ie the Muslim Woman & the Christian man, the two Pakistani citizens? So all those who are blowing hot and cold on this issue, do they then support Mullahs running the Pakistani state? How can a Mullah and his gang impose their interpretation upon families in Narowal? What about Quaid-e-Azam’s famous statement that “it will not be a theocratic state to be run by priests..”?

Are we then arguing that in Pakistani law women are inferior to men? minorities have very limited rights and choices? So a Pakistani Christian who belongs to a small minority of 2-3% population cannot marry among the 97% community then surely he has far less rights even in theory, forget about practice..? do these things not prick our conscience?

How all this coming at this time when we were struggling for the last 2-3 weeks to convince the world to be more understanding of our concerns and sensitives affects our moral case against hate speech?

Muslim men marry Women of the book (Christian & Jewish)…!

Moeed Pirzada |

I have deleted the earlier comment on Christian-Muslim Marriage, because on the face of it most of you are convinced that whereas Muslim men marry Women of the book (Christian & Jewish), Muslim women don’t have this right. It is difficult for me to explain to you (because you think only people with beards and apparent religious appearance can understand Islam; which is a tragedy) so I have produced below a detailed correspondence between an African Muslim woman and a Muslim Scholar of repute. You must read it, for even if you are not convinced, you will get to understand that it’s an interpretation by scholars and jurists and not forbidden expressly by God. Will God like to discriminate against Muslim women? Can their rights be less than Muslim men?

You must also read some Quotes from “Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam” by Allama Iqbal, which for those who can grasp, add a lot of depth on the subject……

in Christianity and Judaism a similar prohibition against coercion does not exist. According to their own religious law, Muslim jurists argued, Christian men may force their Muslim wives to convert to their (the husbands’) religion. Put differently, it was argued, Islam recognizes Christianity and Judaism as valid religions, but Judaism and Christianity do not recognize the validity of Islam as a religion.

On Christian Men marrying Muslim Women As-Salaam-Alaikum: I don’t mean to bother you but this is disturbing my mind and I need an educated explanation. I was at a Muslim Sister’s Fashion Show (predominately African American sisters) when during casual conversation a young sister (mid 20s) stated that her husband is Christian. This as you can image created quite a stir. She was immediately verbally attacked. She tried to defend herself by saying that he did not prohibit her from practicing Islam and he has agreed that the children will be Muslim. She was advised to divorce him. I don’t know if they were married and she converted or if she was already Muslim when they married. She was under such a heavy attack that I could not get that question in. However this issue is one that I need to understand because I can’t adequately explain why there is a prohibition for the Muslim female in marrying from the people of the book and there is no prohibition for the Muslim male. More often than not I hear all non Muslims classified as kufar.

The only explanation I can provide is that the Quran specifies that the male can marry a Christian or Jewish woman. Since he is the head of the household the expectation is that he will respect her rights and the children will take his religion. Really in actuality from what I’ve seen this is not the case. The woman has so much pressure put on her to abandon her beliefs that she eventually gives in or gets out of the marriage. I have been asked does the Quran specifically prohibit the Muslim woman from marrying a Christian or Jewish male. My understanding is the only specific prohibition is for polytheist. Am I wrong? This is a big issue for African Americans especially because of the rate of conversion.

There are instances where the husband converts and the wife does not. This is not seen as a problem. However there are instances where the wife converts and the husband does not. It doesn’t matter whether they have been together 2 years or 20 years, the advice the sister receives is to divorce him. Then there are the cases of sisters whose preference is to marry within their race but there are not enough suitable African American Muslim men at least in this city. They resign themselves to being celibate forever. When I say suitable African American Muslim men, I mean those who are knowledgeable about the Deen and truly strive to practice it, those who have truly accepted the role and responsibilities of the Muslim male and do not demand that the woman provide more financially for them than they provide for her, those who are not extremist, those who have not been married and divorced 3, 4 or 5 times with children all over the place, those who are not trying to have several wives when they can’t afford to take care of one, etc. This is airing dirty laundry but so be it, this is our harsh reality. [Name withheld for privacy] ****************************************
Al-salamu ‘alaykum sister:

The woman has so much pressure put on her to abandon her beliefs that she eventually gives in or gets out of the marriage. I have been asked does the Quran specifically prohibit the Muslim woman from marrying a Christian or Jewish male. My understanding is the only specific prohibition is for polytheist.

First I should apologize for the long time it has taken me to respond to your message. As you might have heard, I have been rather ill. But on a happier note, recently we were blessed with a wonderful baby boy. But I should confess that there is another reason for the delay. This is a difficult issue to deal with. I did receive a large number of inquiries about this same issue, and I have tended to avoid responding to them because I am not exactly very excited about handling this weighty and serious problem. Surprising to me, all schools of thought prohibited a Muslim woman from marrying a man who is a kitabi (among the people of the book). I am not aware of a single dissenting opinion on this, which is rather unusual for Islamic jurisprudence because Muslim jurists often disagreed on many issues, but this is not one of them. All jurists agreed that a Muslim man or woman may not marry a mushrik [one who associates partners with God–there is a complex and multi-layered discourse on who is to be considered a mushrik, but we will leave this for a separate discussion]. However, because of al-Ma’ida verse 5, there is an exception in the case of a Muslim man marrying a kitabiyya. There is no express prohibition in the Qur’an or elsewhere about a Muslim woman marrying a kitabi.

However, the jurists argued that since express permission was given to men, by implication women must be prohibited from doing the same. The argument goes: If men needed to be given express permission to marry a kitabiyya, women needed to be given express permission as well, but since they were not given any such permission then they must be barred from marrying a kitabi. The justification for this rule was two-fold: 1) Technically, children are given the religion of their father, and so legally speaking, the offspring of a union between a Muslim male and a kitabiyya would still be Muslim; 2)It was argued that Muslim men are Islamically prohibited from forcing their wives to become Muslim. Religious coercion is prohibited in Islam.

Read more: Christian-Muslim marriage…!

However, in Christianity and Judaism a similar prohibition against coercion does not exist. According to their own religious law, Muslim jurists argued, Christian men may force their Muslim wives to convert to their (the husbands’) religion. Put differently, it was argued, Islam recognizes Christianity and Judaism as valid religions, but Judaism and Christianity do not recognize the validity of Islam as a religion. Since it was assumed that the man is the stronger party in a marriage, it was argued that Christian and Jewish men will be able to compel their Muslim wives to abandon Islam. (If a Muslim man would do the same, he would be violating Islamic law and committing a grave sin).

Importantly, the Hanafi, Maliki, and Shafi’i jurists held that it is reprehensible (makruh) for Muslim men to marry a kitabiyya if they live in non-Muslim countries. They argued that in non-Muslim countries, mothers will be able to influence the children the most. Therefore, there is a high likelihood that the children will not grow up to be good Muslims unless both parents are Muslim. Some jurists even went as far as saying that Muslim men are prohibited from marrying a kitabiyya if they live in non-Muslim countries. This is the law as it exists or the legal legacy as we inherited it. In all honesty, personally, I am not convinced that the evidence prohibiting Muslim women from marrying a kitabi is very strong. Muslim jurists took a very strong position on this matter–many of them going as far as saying if a Muslim woman marries a kitabi she is as good as an apostate. I think, and God knows best, that this position is not reasonable and the evidence supporting it is not very strong.

In all honesty, personally, I am not convinced that the evidence prohibiting Muslim women from marrying a kitabi is very strong. Muslim jurists took a very strong position on this matter–many of them going as far as saying if a Muslim woman marries a kitabi she is as good as an apostate. I think, and God knows best, that this position is not reasonable and the evidence supporting it is not very strong. 

However, I must confess that in my humble opinion, I strongly sympathize with the jurists that argued that in non-Muslim countries it is reprehensible (makruh) for a Muslim to marry a non-Muslim. God knows best–I have reached this position after observing that the children of these Muslim/non-Muslim marriages in most cases do not grow up with a strong sense of their Islamic identity. It seems to me that in countries like the U.S. it is best for the children if they grow up with a Muslim father and mother. I am not comfortable telling a Muslim woman marrying a kitabi that she is committing a grave sin and that she must terminate her marriage immediately. I do tell such a woman that she should know that by being married to a kitabi that she is acting against the weight of the consensus; I tell her what the evidence is; and then I tell her my own ijtihad on the matter (that it is makruh for both men and women in non-Muslim countries). After telling her all of this, I add that she must always remember that only God knows best; that she should reflect on the matter as hard as she can; then she should pray and plead for guidance from God; and then ultimately she must do what her conscience dictates.

I hope this response helps answer your question. I pray to God to guide us both to what He pleases and wants, and that He helps the sister you wrote me about to find peace and tranquility with whatever decision she makes. God is the best guide and mentor–may He forgive our sins and bless us with His Compassion and Mercy.

With my sincere regards, Shaykh Khaled Abou El Fadl

Scholar of the House is dedicated to providing a path to peace through education and understanding. Please join our cause!

 

Moeed Pirzada is prominent TV Anchor & commentator; he studied international relations at Columbia Univ, New York and law at London School of Economics. Twitter: MoeedNj. The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Global Village Space’s editorial policy. This piece was first published in Moeed Pirzada’s official page. It has been reproduced with permission.

Muslim men marry Women of the book (Christian & Jewish)…!

1

Moeed Pirzada | FB Blog |

I have deleted the earlier comment on Christian-Muslim Marriage, because on the face of it most of you are convinced that whereas Muslim men marry Women of the book (Christian & Jewish), Muslim women don’t have this right. It is difficult for me to explain to you (because you think only people with beards and apparent religious appearance can understand Islam; which is a tragedy) so I have produced below a detailed correspondence between an African Muslim woman and a Muslim Scholar of repute. You must read it, for even if you are not convinced, you will get to understand that it’s an interpretation by scholars and jurists and not forbidden expressly by God. Will God like to discriminate against Muslim women? Can their rights be less than Muslim men?

You must also read some Quotes from “Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam” by Allama Iqbal, which for those who can grasp, add a lot of depth on the subject……

On Christian Men marrying Muslim Women As-Salaam-Alaikum: I don’t mean to bother you but this is disturbing my mind and I need an educated explanation. I was at a Muslim Sister’s Fashion Show (predominately African American sisters) when during casual conversation a young sister (mid 20s) stated that her husband is Christian. This as you can image created quite a stir. She was immediately verbally attacked. She tried to defend herself by saying that he did not prohibit her from practicing Islam and he has agreed that the children will be Muslim. She was advised to divorce him. I don’t know if they were married and she converted or if she was already Muslim when they married. She was under such a heavy attack that I could not get that question in. However this issue is one that I need to understand because I can’t adequately explain why there is a prohibition for the Muslim female in marrying from the people of the book and there is no prohibition for the Muslim male. More often than not I hear all non Muslims classified as kufar.

The only explanation I can provide is that the Quran specifies that the male can marry a Christian or Jewish woman. Since he is the head of the household the expectation is that he will respect her rights and the children will take his religion. Really in actuality from what I’ve seen this is not the case. The woman has so much pressure put on her to abandon her beliefs that she eventually gives in or gets out of the marriage. I have been asked does the Quran specifically prohibit the Muslim woman from marrying a Christian or Jewish male. My understanding is the only specific prohibition is for polytheist. Am I wrong? This is a big issue for African Americans especially because of the rate of conversion. There are instances where the husband converts and the wife does not. This is not seen as a problem. However there are instances where the wife converts and the husband does not. It doesn’t matter whether they have been together 2 years or 20 years, the advice the sister receives is to divorce him. Then there are the cases of sisters whose preference is to marry within their race but there are not enough suitable African American Muslim men at least in this city. They resign themselves to being celibate forever. When I say suitable African American Muslim men, I mean those who are knowledgeable about the Deen and truly strive to practice it, those who have truly accepted the role and responsibilities of the Muslim male and do not demand that the woman provide more financially for them than they provide for her, those who are not extremist, those who have not been married and divorced 3, 4 or 5 times with children all over the place, those who are not trying to have several wives when they can’t afford to take care of one, etc. This is airing dirty laundry but so be it, this is our harsh reality. [Name withheld for privacy] ****************************************
Al-salamu ‘alaykum sister:

First I should apologize for the long time it has taken me to respond to your message. As you might have heard, I have been rather ill. But on a happier note, recently we were blessed with a wonderful baby boy. But I should confess that there is another reason for the delay. This is a difficult issue to deal with. I did receive a large number of inquiries about this same issue, and I have tended to avoid responding to them because I am not exactly very excited about handling this weighty and serious problem. Surprising to me, all schools of thought prohibited a Muslim woman from marrying a man who is a kitabi (among the people of the book). I am not aware of a single dissenting opinion on this, which is rather unusual for Islamic jurisprudence because Muslim jurists often disagreed on many issues, but this is not one of them. All jurists agreed that a Muslim man or woman may not marry a mushrik [one who associates partners with God–there is a complex and multi-layered discourse on who is to be considered a mushrik, but we will leave this for a separate discussion]. However, because of al-Ma’ida verse 5, there is an exception in the case of a Muslim man marrying a kitabiyya. There is no express prohibition in the Qur’an or elsewhere about a Muslim woman marrying a kitabi.

However, the jurists argued that since express permission was given to men, by implication women must be prohibited from doing the same. The argument goes: If men needed to be given express permission to marry a kitabiyya, women needed to be given express permission as well, but since they were not given any such permission then they must be barred from marrying a kitabi. The justification for this rule was two-fold: 1) Technically, children are given the religion of their father, and so legally speaking, the offspring of a union between a Muslim male and a kitabiyya would still be Muslim; 2)It was argued that Muslim men are Islamically prohibited from forcing their wives to become Muslim. Religious coercion is prohibited in Islam. However, in Christianity and Judaism a similar prohibition against coercion does not exist. According to their own religious law, Muslim jurists argued, Christian men may force their Muslim wives to convert to their (the husbands’) religion. Put differently, it was argued, Islam recognizes Christianity and Judaism as valid religions, but Judaism and Christianity do not recognize the validity of Islam as a religion. Since it was assumed that the man is the stronger party in a marriage, it was argued that Christian and Jewish men will be able to compel their Muslim wives to abandon Islam. (If a Muslim man would do the same, he would be violating Islamic law and committing a grave sin).

Importantly, the Hanafi, Maliki, and Shafi’i jurists held that it is reprehensible (makruh) for Muslim men to marry a kitabiyya if they live in non-Muslim countries. They argued that in non-Muslim countries, mothers will be able to influence the children the most. Therefore, there is a high likelihood that the children will not grow up to be good Muslims unless both parents are Muslim. Some jurists even went as far as saying that Muslim men are prohibited from marrying a kitabiyya if they live in non-Muslim countries. This is the law as it exists or the legal legacy as we inherited it. In all honesty, personally, I am not convinced that the evidence prohibiting Muslim women from marrying a kitabi is very strong. Muslim jurists took a very strong position on this matter–many of them going as far as saying if a Muslim woman marries a kitabi she is as good as an apostate. I think, and God knows best, that this position is not reasonable and the evidence supporting it is not very strong. However, I must confess that in my humble opinion, I strongly sympathize with the jurists that argued that in non-Muslim countries it is reprehensible (makruh) for a Muslim to marry a non-Muslim. God knows best–I have reached this position after observing that the children of these Muslim/non-Muslim marriages in most cases do not grow up with a strong sense of their Islamic identity. It seems to me that in countries like the U.S. it is best for the children if they grow up with a Muslim father and mother. I am not comfortable telling a Muslim woman marrying a kitabi that she is committing a grave sin and that she must terminate her marriage immediately. I do tell such a woman that she should know that by being married to a kitabi that she is acting against the weight of the consensus; I tell her what the evidence is; and then I tell her my own ijtihad on the matter (that it is makruh for both men and women in non-Muslim countries). After telling her all of this, I add that she must always remember that only God knows best; that she should reflect on the matter as hard as she can; then she should pray and plead for guidance from God; and then ultimately she must do what her conscience dictates.

I hope this response helps answer your question. I pray to God to guide us both to what He pleases and wants, and that He helps the sister you wrote me about to find peace and tranquility with whatever decision she makes. God is the best guide and mentor–may He forgive our sins and bless us with His Compassion and Mercy.

With my sincere regards, Shaykh Khaled Abou El Fadl

Scholar of the House is dedicated to providing a path to peace through education and understanding. Please join our cause!

PTI seminar on health policy vision…!

Moeed Pirzada |

PTI Seminar on Health Policy VisionTI Seminar on Health Policy Vision: I did attend the Seminar at Marriott, Islamabad. It is certainly a historic moment in Pakistan’s political history when a major political party, or any party for that purpose, for the first time has placed a Health Policy of any sort before public, media and its opponents for debate & dissection. I hope and I expect that this first move will encourage or force other major parties like PPP & Allies, PMLN and MQM to come forward with their own Health Policy Agendas… if that happened and lead to an inter-party debate on Health Policy then we will start to enter the second half of 20th Century at least… Event was very well attended with large Marquee Hall brimming with civil society and media; I counted 24 TV cameras in a row behind the audience and dozens of reporters beaming around; but will this make a difference? lets address this question…

Policy is sound; has a huge input from doctors and other health professionals of Pakistan Medical Association (PMA); has been lead by Jehangir Tareen and since I am a medical doctor to begin with, I can see a very rational and pragmatic professional approach

I have a hard copy with me, and I am sure all of you can access the soft copy at PTI website. This is a well thought out document that begins by analyzing Pakistan’s current Health challenges with widespread malnutrition and communicable diseases, high infant & maternal mortality rates, expanding population and poor sanitation standards all compounded by a Health system that suffers from malfunction and bad governance at all levels and is basically geared to serve elite at the expense of teeming millions…for instance PTI claims that rich Pakistanis each year spend a gigantic amount of money abroad for treatment, bigger than all health budgets of Pakistan; how have they found it out? I am not sure but this is their claim…

PTI has outlined a Five Point Agenda: 1): Paradigm Shift towards Preventive Healthcare through action and Awareness; 2)- Complete Decentralization and De-politicization of Health governance; 3)- Prioritize Primary Health Care with focus on Mother & Child Care & School Health Care; 4)- Develop a reliable & Integrated Health Information System for evidence based planning and decision making; 5)- Increase Public Health Funding from 0.8% to 2.6% of GDP ie from Rs. 165 billion today to Rs. 1260 billion in Year 5.

Policy is sound; has a huge input from doctors and other health professionals of Pakistan Medical Association (PMA); has been lead by Jehangir Tareen and since I am a medical doctor to begin with, I can see a very rational and pragmatic professional approach; however it is basically goals and aspirations or desires developed from the input of medical profession; such knowledge has always been available to the provincial governments and we need to compare it with the on-ground challenges faced by governments, for instance, Punjab where Shahbaz Sharif has worked hard over the last 4 years to improve things; we need to know what actually fails the delivery. PTI is right in declaring that the main challenge is to improve the Health sector governance, however how PTI will be able to do it, is far from clear…?

Event was very well attended with large Marquee Hall brimming with civil society and media; I counted 24 TV cameras in a row behind the audience and dozens of reporters beaming around; but will this make a difference? lets address this question…

I asked Imran that when he says that we will raise Health spending from 0.8% to 2.6% of GDP, how will he do it? because in west political parties come up with precise sector wise analysis of the economy and budget allocations and then explain that how they will mobilize funds (from say Defense or say boost exports etc…) he asked Asad Omar to explain, who argued that they will save 5% by cutting losses in public utilities, boost exports and some other things; I am hopeful that PTI will give us more details, because the devil lies in details; once we start debating numbers then other parties will need to jump in; politics will start to move to the real issues; at the moment it’s is easy to say that we will do this for Health and that for Education and such and such for Environment and Energy but how will you do it is the real question and debate…?

Nevertheless it is a big step in Pakistani politics; and I am hopeful that PPP and PMLN will follow suit by coming up with their own health Policies….Amen! Many other members of this page like Dr. Salman Younas for instance were present there; he and others should share their experiences….Welcome to a New Pakistan!

 

Moeed Pirzada is prominent TV Anchor & commentator; he studied international relations at Columbia Univ, New York and law at London School of Economics. Twitter: MoeedNj. The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Global Village Space’s editorial policy. This piece was first published in Moeed Pirzada’s official page. It has been reproduced with permission.