My problem with the piece by Mr “Attackerman”, though, isn’t his juvenile attempt at “Gonzo” style journalism, it’s that he doesn’t seem to know what he’s talking about. Setting aside his unquestioning acceptance of the US investigation into Salala that conveniently blamed the victim (has any military ever found itself at fault?), Mr “Attackerman” misses the point completely on issues of the economics of war.

One of the key points of negotiations to re-open NATO supplies, as he notes, has been fees for shipping through Pakistan. Transit fees are not unusual and they’re definitely not extortion. If the old fee for shipping supplies really was $0, that’s insane. Oil and gas companies charge fees for transporting resources through their pipelines. So do the countries that the pipelines run through. Trucking companies pay fees, too. All of this is routine economics because transporting goods results in external costs such as pollution and wear on national infrastructure.

BBC reported yesterday that NATO shipments over the past several years have destroyed roads and infrastructure, causing hundreds of millions of dollars worth of damages. Does Mr “Attackeman” honestly think that we should have to suffer this loss without any compensation?

Mr “Attackerman” also misses the point regarding the $1.1 billion for what he describes as “services rendered”. What he’s actually referring to are Coalition Support Funds (CSF) that the US promised to reimburse Pakistan and other nations for operation and logistical support of US-led counterterrorism operations.

Reimbursement is the key word. It means compensating for expenses that have already been paid. Much like the damage to roads and infrastructure that NATO supplies cause, we have spent billions on supplies and equipment to support counterterrorism operations. Pakistan is not a wealthy nation like the US – $1.1 billion represents .5% of Pakistan’s GDP but it only represents .00007% of US GDP. This might seem like a small amount to the US, but it means a lot to Pakistan. For the US to withhold this reimbursement appears spiteful. For Mr “Attackerman” to describe it as Pakistan holding out its hand is just insulting.

Mr “Attackerman” is not just an anti-Pakistan agent, though. Don’t give him so much credit. Like I said, he calls himself “Attackerman”, and he doesn’t care who he attacks. He is also happy to attack America’s war against al Qaeda and its counterterrorism strategy, and its top spy agency the CIA. Whoever he’s attacking, though, it usually involves a combination of mischaracterisations and slang words like “frenemy” to make it seem irreverent and funny.

Next week, officials will gather in Chicago to discuss ways to improve cooperation and stop militants from killing innocent people in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Guys like Mr “Attackerman” will write blogs making jokes about it without bother to get their facts right because their job isn’t about facts, it’s about entertainment. I guess that’s fine for people far away from the front lines of terrorism. In Pakistan, we don’t really have that luxury.

The announcement that an unconditional invitation was extended to President Zardari to attend the NATO summit in Chicago next week represents an important success on the part of the nation’s military and civilian leadership and demonstrates how institutional cooperation and effective negotiating around mutual intersts can result in a ‘win-win’ for both Pakistan and the US.

In the latest rounds of negotiating, neither side got everything they wanted, but each side is getting some of their original demands, and, most importantly, it looks like a new approach to Pak-US relations is finally being put in place. Ambassador Sherry Rehman explained this in an interview with Dawn.

We want this relationship to be grounded in realistic expectations, respect for each other’s sovereignty, appreciation of each other’s legitimate security interests and understanding of each other’s redlines. Similarly, both sides need to be aware of each other’s limitations and constraints.

The Ambassador is not just speaking for herself, either. Media reports that none less than former Presidential nominee US Senator John McCain told a Washington think tank this week that good relations with Pakistan are in America’s interest, but that they must “take a totally realistic approach” and that “we can’t force the Pakistani government and people to change their ways”. He even termed the Pressler Amendment which cut ties with Pakistan in the 1990s as “one of the gravest mistakes in recent history”.

Of course, not everyone is pleased with the government’s success. Ahmed Quraishi is upset that we may lift the blockade on NATO supply routes. As usual, his complaint is baded more on emotion than reason. He never explains what we would have gained from continuing to block NATO supply routes. He seems to want to block NATO routes just for the sake of blocking them. At the same time, he completely ignores what we could have lost by being defiant instead of being smart.

I would kindly request Ahmed to consider the recent column by Ejaz Haider – a real analyst – about where Ahmed’s “strategy” would have taken us.

What are Pakistan’s choices? Near-zero. The state’s legitimacy is challenged from inside; the state’s ability to influence events in the region has dwindled to almost nothing; the state has no capacity to project its narrative; the rightwing is working against it by isolating it from the rest of the world; the left-liberals consider it a security state that needs to be reshaped in line with the narrative that comes from the outside.

And now, the commitment trap. If the US doesn’t apologise, GLOC won’t be opened. The US won’t. Pakistan won’t get invited to the Chicago summit. Neither side wants it to get worse. Both are committed to their courses of action. The US has more choices. It can now go solo in Afghanistan and also coerce Pakistan. Pakistan’s strategic assets, geography etcetera, are now its liabilities.

Even The News – no supporter of the government itself – agrees that the government has played its hand deftly and developments have unfolded in Pakistan’s best interests.

The closure of the Nato route across our land has been the catalyst for a range of changes. One which will require careful handling is the closer engagement with parliament in the determination of the direction of foreign policy; with specific reference to the USA but, in broader terms, perhaps reading across to all foreign policy making. It is not that the military is any less engaged in foreign policy making, but that the civilian government is more engaged than hitherto; a shift of emphasis rather than power. Then there is the issue of revenue. There has been talk, but no detail beyond some very optimistic figures, of putting in place a per-container levy which would be a welcome income stream for a hard-pressed exchequer. Many thousands of trucks will pass through every month, and if Nato pays a premium for the privilege then so much the better. Any ‘deal’ without such a component would be a poor deal indeed. There is also the issue of back payments to the Coalition Support Fund (CSF). The US has always been dilatory in paying its dues to the CSF, and ceased altogether when the convoys were halted. We need the money if the coming budget is to be anywhere close to balanced and regular CSF payments must also be a part of any agreement.

Politically the reopening without the imprimatur of parliament is somewhat fraught. The opposition parties have all voiced varying degrees of anger at the possibility of a resumption of supplies, but at the end of the day the government probably had little choice but to reopen the roads. There will be some opposition of that there is little doubt, but once the point has been made pragmatism (and vested interests) will in all likelihood prevail. Internationally the Chicago conference and our place at the table is timely indeed. Thus far we have been either sidelined or simply ignored by the Americans working on the post-conflict scenarios in Afghanistan — but it is crucial that we are closely engaged.

After months of hard fought negotiating based on an insistence that taught the Americans that Pakistan was not going to roll over on our own interests, we are beginning to see signs of success. The US knows that it cannot abandon Pakistan to its fate, and it seems that the Americans recognise their past mistakes and do not intend to repeat them. We, too, know that we cannot take a path that isolates us from the rest of the world, and that we must make sure we are present at international forums where issues that affect our interests will be decided.

Those who make their living by promoting isolationism and other failed policies of the past will squawk about the possibility of re-opening NATO supply routes, but these complaints are based on hypernationalist emotions and not a rational plan for what is in the best interest of Pakistan.

The story, reported in The News, tells that:

…during the hearing of a case lodged against two Rental Power Projects (RPPs) on Friday, Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry observed that the emergency meeting summoned by President Asif Ali Zardari to discuss the electricity crisis was indicative of institutional and administrative breakdown in the country.

The chief justice maintained that the electricity crisis plaguing the country was so severe that it had forced the president to convene an emergency meeting, and this was an indication of the government’s failure.

It is one thing to for the Court to question whether contracts were awarded in a lawful and transparent way. It is quite another for the Chief Justice to declare the government a failure. Openly expressing an anti-government opinion in the Court raises serious concerns that the Chief Justice has crossed the line from being an unbiased judge who applies the law per the Constitution to a political activist who uses his authority to promote an agenda.

It also raises serious concerns about recent decisions by the Court which some believe go beyond interpreting the law to targeting the government. The Supreme Court’s obsession with forcing the Prime Minister to write a letter, despite the clear language of Article 248 of the constitution along with the fact that the detailed verdict in the PM’s contempt case, for example, is filled with contradictions and inconsistencies has caused many to worry that the Court is doing more than acting as a neutral judge. Then there is the never-ending saga of ‘memogate’ in which the Supreme Court has given yet another four week extension despite the fact that nothing new has been discovered for months, keeping anti-government conspiracies alive rather than settling the issue once and for all when it was supposed to be settled months ago.

When the Chief Justice took his oath, he swore in the name of Allah that he “will not allow my personal interest to influence my official conduct or my official decisions” and “that, in all circumstances, I will do right to all manner of people, according to law, without fear or favor, affection or ill-will”. After giving political statements during hearings, the Chief Justice should consider whether he has acted according to his sworn oath, or whether he has crossed the line between justice and activist.

The news buzz of the week is that Pakistan has not been invited to the NATO Summit taking place in Chicago this month. According to reports, this May 20-21 two-day summit, with over 60 heads of state and governments, is expected to be the biggest NATO summit in history. The agenda includes likely discussion on impacts of recent events such as the Arab Spring, Libyan civil war, global financial crisis, and transition for NATO forces in Afghanistan. As explained here, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen mentions:

“This will be a summit of commitment. Commitment to complete transition in Afghanistan. Commitment to strengthen even further the connections with our partners across the globe”.

Not getting invited to the NATO summit in Chicago means that Pakistan will not be able to defend its priorities while crucial decisions are being made. It is a platform where concerns will be aired from all sides but Pakistan’s absence from that forum will only prove to be one less chance for dialogue between US and Pakistan. Of special interest to Pakistan would be withdrawal of Allied/US troops from Afghanistan.

AVM Shahzad Chaudhry writes in his column:

“Any reason given to the American military machine to hang on to Afghanistan means a continuation of the war and the associated strife; which really means Pakistan remains in the hot-house that it has been in ever since this war against terror began. I mean that much more in the socioeconomic sense, which then becomes the perpetuating factor of both the war and the associated socioeconomic strife by providing easy recruits out of an increasingly dispossessed population. Obviously we want out of this dark hole.”

It goes without saying that U.S is upset at Pakistan for not taking more action against the Haqqani network, an Afghan insurgent group based in Pakistan’s tribal areas, that sneaks regularly into Afghanistan and carries out assaults against US bases. Tie this in with Salala incident and lacks of apology from Obama administration and you have an upset Pakistan. Furthermore, this week the secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, said:

Pakistan needs to make sure that its territory is not used as a launching pad for terrorist attacks anywhere.

Needless to say, this further sparked the US Pakistan severe in ties.

Whether the Americans stay or go, Afghanistan will remain. We can’t really afford to alienate the world’s last super power, but we certainly can’t afford to alienate our neighbors and thus miss opportunity for further growth of mutually beneficial cooperation and understanding in various fields, which form an integral part of the larger effort of building the nation’s capabilities through economic development and well-being of the people.

The obvious conclusion that we can draw from all this is that international summits are extremely important because they bring countries together such and make discussions possible on issues that might otherwise be sidelined for individual interests. The upcoming NATO summit could have been an opportunity for Pakistan to interact with NATO member states to discuss economic development, common purpose and motivate the alliance to explore future opportunities for cooperation. Pakistan’s best interests can be found in developing positive working relations with other countries. Isolating ourselves threatens our own interests.

Nuclear weapons have long been considered a military deterrent because actually using them would by M.A.D. – Mutually Assured Destruction. In other words, in a nuclear conflict both sides lose and nobody wins. This has prevented a nuclear war between great powers such as the US and the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and Pakistan and India also.

Today, ballistic missiles are quickly becoming a weapon of the past not only because their use would result in an immediate response from the rest of the world, but because modern interceptor technology makes them obsolete. While Pakistan was successfully testing the Hatf III ballistic missile, the US was successfully testing the SM-3 anti-missile interceptor. Now, even countries with advanced missile technology cannot be certain that their weapons will hit the targets without being stopped by interceptors.

Ballistic missiles are not only becoming obsolete in modern war because of advances in interceptor technology, though. They are also becoming obsolete because they are designed for a type of warfare that is less likely to occur – conventional inter-state warfare. Most conflicts today do not take place in conventional war theaters like World War I and World War II. Fighting today mostly occurs in heavily populated areas between combinations of traditional security forces and irregular fighters.

In modern wars, the weapons too have changed. Today’s wars are fought with small arms. Large conventional bombers have been replaced by small unmanned arial vehicles (UAV) also known as “drones”. A ballistic missile is a deterrent against large scale threats like other ballistic missiles or troop invasions, but is no use in modern war. As such, it too has been replaced by the small improvised explosive device (IED).

The US has responded to this new era of war fighting by shifting its focus away from developing new large scale conventional weapons to the production of targeted small scale weapons like drones and defensive technology that can neutralise the IED threat. According to reports, the US military is spending over $5 billion each year to study IEDs and develop new technologies to neutralise these weapons.

Defence analyst S.M. Hali has noted that IEDs ‘are wreaking double havoc in Pakistan’. He explains that “IEDs attacks alone in Pakistan has taken lives of 2707 soldiers whereas 1188 NATO soldiers became prey of IEDs in Afghanistan from 2006 to 2012″. Just last week, five people including three security officials were killed when two IEDs exploded in Bajaur Agency. One week later, a policeman was killed and three others injured by a remote-controlled IED in Quetta that was planted by terrorists for targeting Pakistan security forces.

Pakistan’s conventional deterrence is modern and effective. That it provides a sufficient deterrent to any unwise ideas of aggression from traditional adversaries has been demonstrated by the restraint showed in the outcome of historical conflicts. Pakistan now needs to shift its focus from the production of outdated weapons systems to address the threats we are facing in today’s conflicts – small arms and the proliferation of IEDs being used by terrorists to target Pakistan security forces. We have successfully neutralised the traditional threat, now it is time to turn our attention to today’s enemy and today’s weapons. It is the security of the nation that is at stake.

The author is a Ravian with expertise in political science and defence studies.

The Court readily admits that they were biased against the Prime Minister from the start. In Paragraph 27, the justices admit that they had already formed an opinion about the outcome of the case before arguments even began, but dismissed counsel’s argument that this deprived the Prime Minister of his right to a fair trial because they claim the opinion was “tentative”. The hearings were not to determine the Prime Minister’s guilt or innocence, but to give the Prime Minister an opportunity to change the justice’s pre-determined opinion. In other words, the Prime Minister was never given a trial at all. The court skipped straight to appeal.

Even this appeal, though, is questionable. According to Paragraph 47 of the detailed verdict, the prosecution concluded by submitting “that the evidence on record does not establish the charge of contempt” against the Prime Minister. This begs the question if the prosecution and the defence both submitted that the evidence does not establish the charge of contempt, how did the Justices come to the conclusion that it did? Did the Court decide that the prosecutor wasn’t prosecuting well enough, so they decided to act as both prosecutor and judge? How could this possibly be considered as a fair trial in accordance with Article 10A of the Constitution?

The most important question that remains unanswered, however, is an old one, but one that the detailed verdict makes ever more glaring: If the Supreme Court truly believes that the President was involved in money laundering and kickbacks that illegally deprived the state of official funds, why don’t they take suo motu action and open a case themselves? Why do they need the Swiss at all?

The Court, of course, refuses to answer this question just as they refuse to answer the question of whether Article 248 grants the President immunity during his term in office. They refuse to answer the question because they know the answer and it isn’t what they want to hear – Article 248 obviously grants the President immunity during his term in office, so they can’t open a case themselves without violating the Constitution.

In Paragraph 40 of the detailed verdict, the seven-member Bench “is in no position to examine the plea” that the Constitution provides the protection of immunity to the President. Why not? They do not explain. Perhaps it is because the obvious conclusion to such an examination would undermine their cause? It is notable that the Honourable Court refuses, once again, to acknowledge what is plainly written in the Constitution.

The Court then goes on in Paragraph 41 to claim that they cannot accept the Prime Minister’s plea to delay the writing of the letter until the President’s term of office has expired and he no longer enjoys Constitutional protection. According to the Court, “this Bench has no power to modify the judgments and delay implementation”.

And yet the same Supreme Court has no problem issuing a string of extensions to the memogate commission. Why does it seem that the Honourable Court can find the power to modify judgements and delay implementation when it suits them, but not when it is inconvenient?

Could it be that because Article 248 presents such an obvious obstacle to the Court’s desired ends, they have cleverly decided to have someone else do the work and ordered the Federal Government to request Swiss authorities to open cases against the President for them? This, too, raises serious questions about the Court’s order.

In Paragraph 5 of the detailed verdict, the Supreme Court writes that “the status of civil party and the claim lodged to the allegedly laundered moneys lying in foreign countries including Switzerland are declared never to have been withdrawn”. If the withdrawal never happened, why, then, does the government need to write to request that the case be re-instated? Shouldn’t the Ministry of Law be able to write asking to be added back as a civil party to the case? Of course not, because the cases were originally opened by and closed by the Swiss courts, and regardless of what the Supreme Court of Pakistan demands, the cases will remain closed until the Swiss themselves choose to re-open them.

This is not the only inconsistency in the Supreme Court’s behaviour. In Paragraph 43, the Honourable Justices write:

43. Since complete facts of the case in Switzerland are not before us, we are in no position to form a definite opinion about its status when the claim was withdrawn nor indeed are we competent to give our own findings on the case, even for the limited purpose of determining the question of immunity.

But later, in Paragraph 56, the Supreme Court states that it does not believe the case was closed by the Swiss authorities on merits.

We, therefore, entertain serious doubts regarding the claim that the case in Switzerland was closed on merits.

Here again, the Supreme Court’s decisions seem to be based not on a consistent application of law and reason, but on what it most convenient to the outcome that they seek – even if it means contradicting themselves in the same order.

This brings us to the next problem with the Supreme Court’s approach. In Paragraph 7 of the detailed verdict, the Supreme Court makes clear that it is instructing the Federal Government to write to Swiss authorities requesting to be made a civil party to a money laundering suit “keeping in view the relations in between the sovereign States and by following the procedure adopted earlier.”

The Supreme Court can find that the previous letter requesting withdrawal as a civil party to the case was in error, but writing a new letter to foreign authorities requesting that a case be opened against a Pakistani citizen is an enforcement action which falls under the purview of the federal government alone – not the judiciary. Otherwise, why don’t the justices simply write to the Swiss and re-open the cases themselves? Because they can’t, and they know it. They don’t have the constitutional authority to do so any more than they have the constitutional authority to open cases against the President themselves.

The Court argues that Article 190 requires authorities to act in aid of the Supreme Court, but basic common sense tells us that even this power only applies to orders that fall within the Supreme Court’s constitutional authority. If the Supreme Court can compel the Prime Minister to write a letter, can they also compel him to bring them chai-samosa? Can the Chief Justice order the Law Minister to wash his car? Will he be found in contempt if the windows are not clean enough?

Interestingly, the argument about whether the Court must be obeyed at all costs is addressed by the Honourable Justices in Paragraph 63, in which the Court poses an interesting hypothetical:

This argument, if accepted, would set a dangerous precedent and anyone would then successfully flout the orders of the Courts by pleading that according to his interpretation they are not in accord with the law.

But the inverse of this is also a dangerous precedent – a vindictive or biased Judge could successfully flout the clear and unambiguous language of the Constitution by issuing an order that was clearly unconstitutional and then demanding that its authority cannot be questioned. According to the Court, “interpretation of the law is the exclusive domain of the judiciary”. Likewise, external affairs with other countries “including the surrender of criminals and accused persons to Governments outside Pakistan” is the exclusive domain of Parliament according to the Federal Legislative List. The Court has no authority to request cases against Pakistani citizens be opened in foreign courts.

The Supreme Court spends page after page after page describing in detail the past actions of government officials that frustrated their purpose – having a letter delivered to the Swiss requesting that a case be opened against the President. But all of this is irrelevant. If the justices don’t have the authority to open foreign cases, neither do they have the authority to direct someone else to do so. The decision of whether to write to the Swiss or not rests not with the Supreme Court, no matter how much they may wish it were so.

Yesterday, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told reporters that she believes al Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahiri is hiding in Pakistan. Foreign Minister Khar responded with grace and poise following such a serious allegation, stating that the government has no information about Zawahiri’s being in Pakistan, but that if the US does would it kindly share that intelligence with Pakistan so that they government can take appropriate action. Unfortunately, this was not the only response. In addition to the FM’s cool reaction was, of course, the predictable outburst of emotion that ignored all reason and, in trying to defend Pakistan, behaved embarrassingly.

The embarrassing response took the form of a Twitter hashtag #ShutUpClinton. As you might expect from the hashtag itself, these were not the most intelligent responses to Clinton’s accusation. They were emotional, reactive, and often attempts to change the subject by pointing out problems with US policy as if that someone excuses problems with our own.

There is no doubt that the US has made some profound mistakes. 9/11 was a terrible intelligence failure. The invasion of Iraq was based on manipulated evidence and propaganda. But just because the Americans have intelligence failures and manipulated evidence and propaganda, does that mean we should do the same?

Many people responded to the #ShutUpClinton campaign by pointing out that Osama bin Laden was living in Pakistan undetected. What came to my mind wasn’t Osama, though, it was Warren Weinstein – the 70-year-old development worker who was kidnapped from his home in Lahore last August.

Overshadowed by Clinton’s remarks was another piece of news that should shake us to our core. The kidnapped American aid worker has finally been heard from – in an al Qaeda hostage video.

It was the first direct confirmation that Al Qaeda was holding Mr. Weinstein, the country director for the Washington-based consultancy J.E. Austin Associates, which contracts for the United States Agency for International Development.

Armed men snatched him from a Lahore neighborhood in August; three months later the leader of Al Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahri, said Mr. Weinstein could be released if the Obama administration stopped all airstrikes in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen, and released several men convicted for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

Yesterday, TTP leader Hakimullah Mehsud declared that the 4th May suicide bombing in Bajaur district was carried out to avenge the 2006 death of an al Qaeda commander. An article in Express Tribune explains the frightening al Qaeda connection in Bajaur:

A Mohmand cleric, Maulvi Faqir Muhammad arose as the al Qaeda-backed leader of the Taliban in Bajaur, who has escaped capture for the last six years, although it was rumoured earlier this year that he may have been killed. He is an important commander with approximately 3,000 warriors under his wing and is expected to fight the post-withdrawal war in Afghanistan. In August 2008, the army launched Operation Sherdil against him to stop the Taliban movement to and from Kunar. The terrorists were ousted from the agency by 2010 but, like warlord Fazlullah of Swat, Maulvi Faqir is able to make hit-and-run raids into the area. Bajaur is far too strategically important for al Qaeda to abandon. In the coming battle, this will be the funnel through which our warriors will cross over to fight the Northern Alliance.

Maulvi Faqir has been difficult to eliminate because of his alliance-making dexterity: he is aligned to Mullah Omar and al-Zawahiri. There are other terrorist outfits in Bajaur that owe similar allegiances and are at the beck and call of Maulvi Faqir. Since 2007, the Taliban are there together with the remnants of TNSM. But the Jaish-i-Muhammad is there too, headed by Qari Ali Rehman, who will unite against the Pakistan Army despite his differences with Maulvi Faqir. The Harkatul Jihadul Islami, which was involved in the Islamabad Marriot Hotel blast, is also active in Bajaur,

As The Express Tribune notes in its editorial, “The suicide attack in Bajaur is a foretaste of what will transpire in the region after the US and Nato forces leave Afghanistan”. Forget Osama, since the past few days al Qaeda terrorists have carried out suicide bombings and released hostage videos of aid workers kidnapped from Lahore. And our response is to list the failures of American foreign policy?

Al Qaeda is operating in Pakistan, and our response is to tell Hillary Clinton to shut up? That doesn’t solve the problem, it ignores it. Whether or not Ayman al-Zawahiri is living in Pakistan is not a question of ghairat, it is a question of self-preservation. If we are unable to unwilling to admit that terrorists are in Pakistan – whether or not their names are Zawahiri – we will be the ones who continue to suffer.

Sana did a great job of explaining that professional and successful women are not some Western creation, either, but come from all parts of society. She also explained that just because talk shows were mostly hosted by men, she did not accept that it was out of her reach to be a successful host herself only because she is a woman.

I have never really thought ‘I’m not a man, therefore, I can’t do something.’ Actually, in our society, there are many fields more dominated by women than men. There is a perception, for example, that modelling is a women’s profession, not a man’s.

As I said, the interview was inspiring me. But then the question came that made my heart sink.

Q: You have covered some extremely emotional stories like the one on the Sialkot lynching. Being a woman anchor, was it difficult for you to hold your emotions in check or did you manage to keep your cool?

Being a woman anchor…? Why would it be any more difficult for a woman anchor to hold back her emotions or manage to keep her cool than a man anchor? In the midst of an inspiring interview about how women can break down the barriers of sexism, up comes an age old sexist stereotype that women are “emotional” and can’t keep their cool in difficult situations. It’s not just women, however, who sometimes let their emotions get the better of them. Actually, looking at high profile journalists, is it really the women who lose their cool?

Since Twitter has gained popularity, many high profile journalists have joined and use the social media site daily. These guys have filled their Twitter feeds with petty gossips, insults, and emotional rants. Following some of our more prominent men TV anchors on Twitter is like having a never ending live feed of a Star Plus drama. Seriously, some moustaches will never be full enough to fully hide the phappay kutnis underneath.

Meanwhile, woman journalists on Twitter like Sana Bucha and Ayesha Tammy Haq have Twitter feeds that are informative. Where some of the men are re-Tweeting trolls and other juvenile insults, the women are debating and educating. Isn’t that what journalism is supposed to be about?

And it’s not just Twitter, either. Watch a few episodes of some of the talk shows hosted by men and see how often they turn into emotional shouting matches. Maybe we should be asking why these men cannot control themselves and behave in a professional way.

Thankfully, after the question about whether Sana could control her emotions, the interview got back to important questions about journalism and the struggles of a woman in a field dominated by men. Women have a lot to contribute to whatever career we choose, but we still have a lot of stereotypes to overcome while we do it. Thankfully, young women like myself have role models like Sana Bucha who refuse to be intimidated by these stereotypes.

Theodore Roosevelt completed the notion “No man is above the law….” by penning an additional prerequisite for the essence of the rule of law much to the benefit of the victims of selective justice that “no man is below the law either”. It is common knowledge now as to how Pakistan Peoples Party has repeatedly been denied justice. In spite of the founding chairman of the party being eliminated in a judicial murder, the charismatic chairperson being hounded in Courts across the country for years in her quest for justice without a single charge ever being proved, the co-chairperson being incarcerated for an astoundingly long period and till date subject to the worst political victimization, PPP’s reference of esteem and deference for the Judiciary can be judged from a long history of repeatedly bowing before the supreme majesty of law at times of adversity and severe injustice where bias evidently seemed floating on the surface of the adjudicature. This at the very least and from even a pessimistic view implies utmost respect for the rule of law. The state of denial seems to have deeply ingrained in the collective psyche of PML-N. Claiming to be innocent on all accounts, as a memory refresher of their gory shenanigans, they need to be reminded of the ‘revolutionary’ guard of N leagues’ unruly mob attack on the Apex Court. The only other precedent of such disgraceful behavior was displayed on November 3’07 when the commando force of the dictator ransacked the highest Court of Law. The aforementioned instances are unprecedented in the sheer brutality and utter disregard for the independence of Judiciary fundamentally enshrined in the Constitution of Pakistan.

From a purely legal standpoint, the short order (which incorporates the operative part of the judgment) quite clearly appears to have dealt with matters beyond the scope of the indictment. This implies that the Prime Minister was condemned unheard. The most probable reasoning against this view is that the judgment read into Section 18 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance 2003 as per which few legal minds contend that conviction of contempt regardless of the type is akin to a conviction of contempt for having acted in a manner which brings the judiciary into ridicule. According to this reasoning, the elements of Section 18 are a prerequisite for securing a conviction in Contempt of Court; the Courts would only convict a proven contemnor if the elements of Contempt satisfy the effects mentioned in Section 18 (notably bringing the Court into ridicule). The issue with such reasoning is that treating Section 18 as if it enshrines the whole concept of Contempt makes one question the purpose for the distinction between the differing types of Contempt quite clearly manifested in the Ordinance. Carrying forward the same reasoning, the core issue remains as to how the Lordships were satisfied on surpassing the threshold rendering a conviction without even hearing the condemned party and how can the reasons leading to guilt not be expressly particularized in the charge sheet. Such a negation of a fundamental principle of natural justice results in the miscarriage of justice.

Historically, the honorable Supreme Court with its unelected Lordships has had a pivotal role in uprooting the nascent saplings of democracy and rule of law over and over again. It is hard to comprehend as to how despite the Court appointed prosecutor in the case assertively pleading of having not an iota of evidence against the accused in the Contempt of Court proceedings, the honorable Supreme Court seemed to have enough ‘evidence’ to convict a democratically elected Prime Minister for merely upholding a Constitutional provision and following the advice of the Law ministry of the federation of Pakistan. The Supreme Court quite remarkably seemed to have enough ‘evidence’ to convict the nation’s beloved SZAB in a globally recognized trumped up murder charge. The Supreme Court seemed to have enough ‘evidence‘ to justify the ruthless Zia regime. The Supreme Court peculiarly seemed to have enough ‘evidence’ to justify another commando general’s misrule and striking abrogation of the Constitution. The Supreme Court also seemed to have enough ‘evidence’ to revoke the order of dissolution of the Federal government led by Mian Nawaz Sharif.

The strong critics of the flawed criminal justice system point out to the dismal prosecution structure. That might be true but the fact of the matter is that there are glaring discrepancies in judicial reasoning and discretion in cases associated with Pakistan Peoples Party. At the heart of this debate revolves a peculiar Pakistani styled jurisprudence via the “doctrine of selective justice” replacing the rather dreadful Roman “doctrine of State necessity” in trampling the Constitution. The Supreme Court astonishingly never seems to have enough evidence’ to convict a single proudly confessing mass murderer brainwashed by a perverted view of the faith. The Supreme Court oddly never seems to have enough ‘evidence’ to convict sectarian killers thriving under a flawed criminal justice system, rapists, billionaire defaulters or as per the alarming trend anyone not associated with the Pakistan Peoples Party. The Supreme Court quite extraordinarily never seemed to have enough ‘evidence’ to convict a commando dictator who not only quite blatantly put the Court into ridicule but also arrested the honourable Lordships with their families. The Supreme Court never seemed to have enough ‘evidence’ to revoke the twice ordered unlawful dissolutions of the Federal governments of Benazir Bhutto. The Supreme Court surprisingly never seemed to enough evidence’ to convict the Sharif brothers over the confessional deals facilitating the whitening of their alleged black billions nor did the apex Court seemingly have enough evidence’ to convict the Sharifs over the utterly disgraceful attack on the highest court of the country. The Supreme Court apparently would never seem to have enough ‘evidence’ to convict any arrogant general or Judge for repeatedly and brutally marring the Constitution through their myopic adventurism. The Supreme Court would always most likely fail to have enough évidence’ to convict even a single person responsible for the Fall of Dhaka, the May 12 killings, the murder of Nawaz Bugti and the list goes on and on. Most tragically despite the struggle and renaissance of the much touted independent judiciary, the streams of justice remain muddled up and impure as ever.

It is most unfortunate that a core pillar of the State is being held hostage by illusions of popularity and misguided notions of representing the will of the masses through the manipulated antics of a sensationalist hyperactive media. Despite the NRO and the palace intrigues, the Pakistan Peoples Party prevailed in the hearts and minds, across the breadth and depth of the electoral demographics of the country. Whilst the chattering class appeared confused on as to who actually represents the will of the people—the unelected judiciary or the hyperactive anchors on the mainstream media, the masses spoke and resoundingly gave their verdict again in the favor of Pakistan Peoples Party. The PPP candidate won the by-election in a constituency widely recognized to be a PML-N stronghold for over last twenty years. As the results were announced, the words of the legendary Faiz majestically resonated in the background to conclude the day:

Na Unki Rasm Nae Hai, Na Apni Reet Nae. Yunhi Hamesha Khilaye Hain Humne Aag Mein Phool. Na Unki Haar Nae Hai, Na Apni Jeet Nae

The writer was recently called to the bar at Lincoln’s Inn and is a freelance columnist. Twitter handle:@ShehryarRS

This Tweet could, and probably will be, read different ways by different people. I took something from it, though, that may not have been originally intended. Rather than looking at one or another specific editorial, the collection of responses to the Abbottabad raid paints an unhealthy picture of our unwillingness or inability to engage in honest conversations about sensitive issues.

Because we are unwilling or unable to confront the fact that Osama bin Laden was living in Pakistan for years until the Americans came and got him, we respond a mess of confused rhetoric. A few days after the 2nd May raid on bin Laden’s compound, The Nation – hardly a pro-American mouthpiece – reported that the raid was carried out as a joint operation between Pakistan and American military.

About 200 Pakistan Army men provided ground support, top level official sources told The Nation. During the operation, four helicopters of the Pakistan Army hovered over the fortress-like hideout of al-Qaeda chief at Thanda Choh, a relatively isolated area of Abbottabads otherwise posh locality Bilal Town that is barely a kilometre away from the Pakistan Military Academy, Kakul. After completing aerial assessments, the four Pakistan Army helicopters were replaced by two US helicopters, ten minutes later. Initially, the US military personnel opened fire at the outer wall of Osamas hideout, which was retaliated by the house inmates with heavy gunfire. After almost twenty minutes of cross-firing, the US forces directly targeted the house with sophisticated bombs, eventually killing Osama, his eight bodyguards, seven close aides and an unspecified number of family members including a young son, children and two wives. When the residents of the area, upon hearing heavy gunshots and explosions, came out of their homes or went up to the rooftops of their houses, Pakistani soldiers in helicopters threw search lights, instructing them to stay indoors. Besides initial aerial support, the Pakistan Army provided ground support by deploying ground troops within a radius of one kilometre of the operation area. The operation continued till 2: 30am. PMA top officials at Kakul did not disclose for several hours the name of the locality where the operation had taken place. Till Monday morning, PMA officials maintained that a Pakistan Army helicopter had crashed near Bilal Town while carrying out routine strategic exercises. Not before the Monday noon, it could be confirmed that Osama bin Laden was killed in the military operation.

Even today, there remain military officials who insist that bin Laden’s death was the result of joint Pak-US operations.

Pakistan’s ISI believes it deserves credit for helping US spy agencies locate the hideout of Osama bin Laden, who was killed by US commandos nearly a year ago.

“The lead and the information actually came from us,” an unnamed senior official with Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI) told The Washington Post.

“Any hit on al-Qaeda anywhere in the world has happened with our help,” The Post quotes one of the Pakistani intelligence officials as saying.

If it was a joint operation, though, why is Dr Shakil Afridi arrested for treason?

It’s not just high level officials, though, who seem to be using self-confusion as a defence mechanism. In a recent article in Dawn, the reporter recalls talking to people who live near Osama’s compound and the conflicting reactions to the raid.

An old man sitting on a grassy patch is not happy to be accosted. Reluctant to talk, he then just erupts and says that Osama did not live there.

“There were ordinary people, families who were killed by them. But there was no Osama,” he says, as he gazes ahead, not willing to make eye contact.

That’s the “there is no Osama” viewpoint. Then there’s the other popular one:

A younger man, with a whisper of a beard, is more forthcoming. When asked if he too thought OBL never lived there, he launches into a long exposition on world politics which he first summarises with a few words: “Osama, Obama, money and drama.”

This is not the view of an extremist or right winger. In his exposition he dismisses “the so-called jihad” and points out that he did not consider OBL as anything more than a “fighter” of some kind.

There was no Osama or there was an Osama but he was not a terrorist?

Actually, what I often hear is are all contradictory beliefs bundled together. 9/11 was a fake drama carried out by CIA to justify invading Muslim countries, but the Americans deserved it for meddling in Muslim countries and supporting kaafir dictators. There was no such person as Osama bin Laden, but if there was he was a creation of the CIA during the 1980s and imposed on us when they abandoned us. Osama didn’t live in Pakistan, but the Americans should not have invaded unilateraly and we would have arrested him gladly.

It’s not just Osama bin Laden, either. This is the kind of double-talk that we hear about drones: Drones are evil and are only killing innocents. Give us the drones and we will use them against militants. It’s the same thing we hear about the Americans in Afghanistan: If they leave, they will be abandoning us to chaos and militancy. If they don’t leave they are causing chaos and militancy.

On the imporant issues, we have cleverly convinced ourselves that not matter what, we are victims. I think this tendency is a result of our history. Having spent so long under the rule of undemocratic regimes – first British colonial rule, then a string of military dictatorships – we have grown accustomed to seeing the world in a fatalistic way. There was nothing we could do because, literally, there was nothing we could do.

All that changed, though, in 2007 when we as a free and sovereign people sent the last dictator packing and took control of our own future. We elected our own leaders, and finally became free to make our own decisions. We are no longer the subjects of the British or the Generals. But we still bear the psychological scars left by the trauma of living under dictatorship. We haven’t shaken the mindset that tells us that our fate is in our own hands.

For the first time, Pakistan can be OUR Pakistan. It can be what we want, not what is imposed on us. It won’t be easy, and it won’t be quick. It will take a lot of work. We’re going to make mistakes, but they will be OUR mistakes. And we can learn from our mistakes and improve and make the country better for our children, and they for their children, etc etc etc.

Before we can do anything, though, we have to find a way to shed the psychological baggage that weighs on us, telling us that we will always be victims. In democracy, we are no longer victims – we are masters of our own destiny. Let’s start thinking like it.