FROM A RINGSIDE SEAT

30 Aug, 2008

Certain issues have to be kept under the carpet in the name of social or culture taboos. Some people are happy with status quo and they try to snub the agents who try to bring about a change. This was exactly what happened in the Senate on Friday. Bibi Yasmeen Shah, senator from PML (Q), was snubbed by Israrullah Zehri from Balochistan National Party, known for its liberal and non-conservative posture.
But ultimately, this taboo was broken and Yasmeen did not stop by agreeing with what was pleaded by Zehri. She was trying to make a point over the alleged killing of five women in Balochistan who were trying to get married according to their own will. "These women were buried alive," she said. "What was their crime? Only that they were going for an act, which is permitted in Islam".
She demanded an independent inquiry into the incident, but Zehri opposed the move, saying that the Senate should not make it a point of debate. This had been done purely in accordance with the Baloch custom, said Zehri, who was indirectly supported by acting chairman Jan Muhammad Jamali, belonging to PML-Q, but also belongs to the province where the incident was reported.
Yasmeen continued with her contention and said that the government had turned a blind eye to this incident despite the fact that it was reported by a section of press. She said that the government was doing so because the brother of a minister was involved in the incident.
Kamil was not wrong when he said that such incidents always tarnished the country's image in the international community. Let the courts, not the jirgas, decide matters, he said. The hot debate on the issue came to an end when Raza assured the house that it would be informed about the incident on Monday.
That taboo was broken, but what remained a taboo was the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO). At a point, when PML (Q) senators were furious over some remarks about the previous government. Yhey reminded the PPP of NRO. But Rabbani played that down by saying that "if we open this debate, then even the opposition benches will get disturbed". The debate on NRO would also disclose the people whose bank loans were written off and the people "are not sitting on our side", he said.
It is always PPP whose lawmakers through one way or the other intimidate their opponents. And, surprisingly, PML (Q) always succumbs to such pressure. The reason for this is clear. The NRO beneficiaries are sitting on both sides of the divide. But Musharraf-the man who drafted this ordinance--is no more in power game. This factor sometimes creates some confusion why this happened to Musharraf. But this confusion would continue to persist due to the factor of underhand and unspoken agreement on NRO between PML (Q) and PPP.
Yes, one thing did happen on Friday in the Upper House of Parliament. Kamil Agha roared once again that PPP had come to power under a deal with Musharraf. But he and other PML (Q) members never went into further details. They spoke loudly when they said that PPP formed the government under a deal, but they cooled down their tempers immediately after saying this sentence.
There was another interesting twist in the proceedings when Nisar Memon of PML (Q) warned that the present government was formed under an international conspiracy aimed at Pakistan's disintegration. "What is happening in the country right now is part of the international campaign to break our motherland," said he. He, however, did not explain his point in detail. He did not tell the house that this campaign was propagated by western think tanks when his favourite, General Pervez Musharraf, was ruling Pakistan. He remained tight-lipped that the former President was also thought to be part of this international conspiracy at some point in time.
Rabbani gave a brief reply to Memon's concerns, but did not remind him that most of the people thought that Musharraf's policies would be responsible for any mishap in the country. But the opposition and treasury members go against each others within certain limits keeping in mind that failings were there on both sides.

Read Comments