WE could soon have drugstore owners agitating, if not against the doctors’ efforts to control the spread of disease then against other restrictions, for instance a ban on the sale of counterfeits. The manufacture of the fake and the spurious involves livelihoods. Stop the fake and you are inevitably depriving those working in the area of their daily bread.

Now if the example stretches the argument about economic protection a little too far, the recent strikes in Rahim Yar Khan and elsewhere in the country against a ban on hunting licences at least open up the game for innovations and precedents that could then be built upon for some of the weirdest campaigns of our times. All in the name of the economy and development, in the name of money.

Common sense dictates that what appears to be the moon to one man is another’s roti. The word going around is that the stoves have turned cold because of the law’s insistence on the ban in defiance of the government, in rejection of the old ideas of brotherly bonding, and as things stand today, in non-recognition of a national something. There is a trail of protest in the country but let’s focus on Rahim Yar Khan by virtue of it being the prime beneficiary of the hunters’ benevolence.

The recent strikes in Rahim Yar Khan against a ban on hunting licences at least open up the game for innovations.

A witness says Rahim Yar Khan town was all of a sudden covered under banners so dense and thick that hardly a sliver of the blue skies was visible at places. These banners were unfurled in a very smooth, brisk exercise as if so dictated by a higher source and they cried out against the economic suppression the area had come to suffer because of a ban on the hunting of the houbara bustard by Gulf princes.

Down at the protest being held at the city’s railway chowk, the motley hosts earnestly and vociferously yearned for the return of the royal guests and their elaborate, extravagant entourages. There was yet another show of solidarity with the treasured guests at which the young students of a government-run school added to the excitement of the drive. Some of them were bare-chested and crouched in the famous murgha posture, and were made to chant slogans inviting the hunters over and above a decree.

The argument was as innocent: simple economics. Cold stoves led to cold calculations of realities that led to cold decisions based on logic, if not the law and common sense. Even common sense, it is argued in such situations, is shaped by personal and group interests and may not always be subservient to the ideals and values of the law.

And, it could be pointed out that even the political opponents of those apparently behind the protest against hunting restrictions were unable to openly oppose an end to the ban. The political parties, the PPP, PTI et al, chose silence over even a measured safe comment on the issue. Civil society that must try and fill the vacuum created by the absence of a political anti-thesis did announce a protest at the same venue in Rahim Yar Khan where the anti-ban group had demonstrated earlier. What arrived, instead, was a telephone message announcing a ‘postponement’.

Sources in RYK maintain that the rally and the shutdown observed in the city were orchestrated by — who else? — the traders. Even though no credits were claimed, some people close to the government were thought to be behind the show. The timing was understandable. December and January make up the ‘season’ for houbara hunting, that is said to involve falconry as part of man’s never-ending search for aphrodisiacs. Then, the Rahim Yar Khan strike took place on the same day a senior law official of the state — an additional attorney general — stood before the Supreme Court judges in the hunting licence case.

Not all went according to the old scheme of events. This was a somewhat new situation the backers of the old were faced with. The case was evidence of the perils of a government having to discuss delicate matters outside the old reliable confines imposed by national interests. The government chose to speak the truth, with a little bit of exaggeration.

The review petition that challenged the ban stressed its point: “[F]alconry is a significant feature of Pakistan’s relations with Middle Eastern countries. Falconry is not merely a sport for Arabs, but also one of their most cherished customs and recognised as a cultural heritage by Unesco.

“For over four decades, the petition recalled, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs had been extending invitations to Arab dignitaries for the sustainable hunting of the houbara bustard through falconry, in view of Pakistan’s strong fraternal and diplomatic relations with Gulf countries. The permits were issued following a strict code of conduct issued by the foreign ministry.”

The element of pleading was added to the impassioned argument when the government stated that this was a “cornerstone of [Pakistan’s] foreign policy”. Nothing less than that: a cornerstone, a pillar of foreign policy, meaning that a Pakistani who wished to have a ban against houbara hunting strictly implemented was actually wishing against his or her country.

For all its legal deficiencies or strengths, this was a brutally honest take on an issue by the government which provided the people of Rahim Yar Khan the rare opportunity of demonstrating on the side of the government. And it was made all the more unique when you realise that those who were adding their voice to the government’s desire to overturn the ban were actually lamenting the government’s inability to give Rahim Yar Khan the gifts the hunters had brought to the city in their wake.

Educational institutions, hospitals and some other infrastructure, even housing societies for the poor, all that the government should have given to the people was delivered by the hunters in return for some expendable birds.

The writer is Dawn’s resident editor in Lahore.

Published in Dawn, November 20th, 2015