Carry on, loo gerbil!

Munir Attaullah

Were viewers told that the USD1.5 billion per annum civilian aid was unconditional, and that the 'offensive' clauses (mostly, no more than a re-hash of the publicly declared policy of our government anyway, and also enshrined in the Charter of Democracy) applied only to the military aid that is additional to the civilian aid? Don't be silly!

The title just about sums up my feelings viewing the pundits and opposition politicians on our political talk shows debate the Kerry-Lugar bill. This column is a comment on what I saw and heard.

For those mystified by the relevance of the title, I offer a few hints and say no more. Those of my generation may remember the 'Carry On' series of British films, specialising in wacky story lines and mindless and crude doubles entendres. A loo is a loo, as everyone knows. And a gerbil is a small burrowing rodent, not uncommon in our part of the world.

The government, knowing full well the proclivities of an overwhelmingly antagonistic media, should have anticipated this furore, and prepared and briefed its own spokesmen accordingly. But it did not do so. This oversight has cost it dearly. By the time it woke up and tried to inject some rational commonsense into the debate, it was already too late. The herd instinct had prevailed (why bother to read the bill when media pundits have already given their authoritative verdict?). The damage was done.

The cry went up that the verdict of the people - the K-L bill was a 'threat to our national security' and an 'attack on our sovereignty' - must be respected. After all we are a ba-sha'oor lot. And, are we not a democracy, wherein the will of the people is supreme?

On the other hand we had that ironic interview, conducted by a reporter of a big tv channel, with some members of the Frontier Assembly after they had condemned the bill. Asked if they had actually read it, the answer - wait for it - was 'NO' in each case. Well, perhaps the people are ba-sha'oor but their representatives are not.

Late in the day, we did hear some saner voices. The Governor Punjab, in his inimitably combative and succinct manner, made a telling point or two; Sardar Assef Ahmed Ali made a fiery speech in Parliament, and the information minister, Mr Kaira tried hard to remove false impressions through many TV appearances. Above all, the editor of this newspaper did an excellent job of putting the whole matter in its proper perspective through his regular TV programmes.

The media charge began with the heavy brigade of the trio of the best known anchors of our most popular channel. We heard the stern voice of the formidable Dr. D&G ('Doom and Gloom', just to remind you) telling us in his rapid-fire and chaste Urdu how our discredited rulers have traded our cherished sovereignty for a pittance and formally accepted American ghulami. A typical example: Kiya Amrika ko hamaree fauj mein afsaraan ki promotions kay muamalay ka bhee mukammal ikhtiar daey diya jae?

Is this true? Is that what the text of the K-L bill says, or even implies? Will it surprise you if the answer was an emphatic 'NO'?

Additionally, were viewers told that the USD1.5 billion per annum civilian aid was unconditional, and that the 'offensive' clauses (mostly, no more than a re-hash of the publicly declared policy of our government anyway, and also enshrined in the Charter of Democracy) applied only to the military aid that is additional to the civilian aid? Don't be silly! Why volunteer information that might dilute the government bashing exercise?

Anyway, how many of us can resist a no-cost opportunity to win brownie points by a public display of one's patriotic and ghairatmand credentials?

Talking about patriotism, I take strong objection to the host of CT opening a discussion on the K-L Bill with the remark that the subject is being discussed tonight because 'mohib-e-watan Pakistanis have expressed serious reservations about the bill'. Meaning what? That those who do not are not patriotic? Why such loaded phraseology? Why not simply 'many (or, even, 'most') Pakistanis etc. etc.'?

Next, in the same vein, let me put on record what the no doubt ba-sha'oor Ch. Abid Sher Ali of the PMLN said on the above programme. He called our ambassador to the US a CIA agent, and our interior minister an agent of B6 (repeatedly, until the host tactfully pointed out that perhaps he meant MI6). He also dropped a suitable bombshell by saying Mr Holbrooke, on his most recent visit, had been given a top-secret special tour of our nuclear facilities!

All in all, it was a wonderful public demonstration by a senior parliamentarian of what the word ba-sha'oor means in our context. Is it not sad to see that a select class of Pakistanis, that has long arrogated to itself a monopoly on patriotism to the exclusion of everyone else, is still alive and kicking?

And what did the well- known anchor of the late night AKKKS programme have to say of the K-L bill on his programme? He started by "Yay hayran kun baat hai kay.... despite the many public admissions by high-ranking US officials (clips shown) of the immense sacrifices made by Pakistan and its security forces in the war on terror, including thousands killed or injured, there is no acknowledgement of these services in the K-L bill. Instead, what we have here is an attempt to discredit and control our security services".

Obviously the gentleman had not read (or ignored) article 4 of Section 4 (Statement of Principles). That states "..... The US recognises the profound sacrifices made by Pakistan in the fight against terrorism, including the loss of more than 1900 soldiers and police...." Or Article 1; or articles 4 and 12 of Section 3 (Findings) etc. etc. to see how the country and its efforts have been duly appreciated in the document.

Then there was Mr Ishaq Dar (and others, similarly) who effectively argued as follows: if need be, we can easily do without USD1.5 billion dollars annually. After all, that represents no more than some 5% of the combined federal and provincial budgets. So what is the big deal?

Well, they conveniently forgot to tell you why it is a big deal. Take the federal budget. The total budget outlay is of the order of Rs2 trillion, whereas the expected revenues are of the order of only Rs1100 billion, leaving a hefty gap that is to filled through various other means (aid, internal bank borrowings etc.). Of the total budget, some Rs1.5 trillion - Rs400 billion more than revenues - is for current expenditure (mainly defence, loan servicing, and administration), leaving some Rs550 for development. And even most of this Rs.550 billion is planned to be funded through aid. What this amounts to is that, in cold hard terms, we actually do not even have the money for current expenditure, let alone development. And all that talk about remittances is a red herring. That is private, not public money.

As the debate progressed, it gradually became clear to, if not the ba-sha'oor awam, at least to those who read the bill, that neither our 'sovereignty' was being 'compromised' nor our national security 'threatened'. What should one do?

No surprises that refuge was duly found behind that ultimate pillar of our foreign policy: the bill deserves to be rejected because, allegedly, the wordings of many clauses are an insult to the izzat, and waqaar of a ghairatmand quam.