ONCE again we have more than our fair share of the baffling and the routine, the two combining to produce the usual benumbing mix.

There is consistency in the name of change. There’s the rediscovery of an old self that takes so much pride in trying the errant chroniclers. The suppressed predator among the politicians returns — above and beyond the development of all these bridges and underpasses signifying movement and progress. There are voices which call for accountability of the media — a newspaper and its celebrated scribe. The face-off does revive — quite inevitably — some trends, both old and new, yet there are some recent ones which fail to surface in defiance of the circumstances. Some clarifications never arrive and a few old positions are reasserted.

The circumstances are unable to reverse a few habits. Why would an interior ministry — albeit one working under a minister well known for his controlled entries on stage — keep everyone guessing for so long about its views about placing a journalist on the Exit Control List?

There’s this question about what causes the most respected pillar of the state to elaborate, or not to elaborate, on a matter.

Far more importantly, in the public eye there’s this question about what causes the most respected pillar of the state to elaborate, or not to elaborate, on a matter. This establishment is known to in recent times offer explanations about its role and desires and goals if and when it has thought it necessary. Why would it choose not to spell out what it thought about a newspaper report tagged as controversial, and its repercussions for those involved?

It is not about whether such remarks from this establishment are ever or always called for. That is a separate debate. The fact is that it has chosen frequently to ‘clarify’ its position on certain events and occurrences. It creates expectation which remains unfulfilled in this particular case.

It does in a way expedite some other people’s search for their old real self. You must by now be aware of the evidence — video, text etc — which shows Pakistan’s second biggest political party pouncing passionately on the same journalist who is at the centre of a fight for his report. The party, which claims to be the only genuine pursuer of change in the country, is working overtime through its various well-known minds to prove that the journalist was more than prompted by its rival in government to lend his byline to a leaked news report. Some of its members go as far as calling him an agent.

The opposition party is bent upon spreading the message through its stalwarts including its most revered chairman. It is concerned with nothing else. It is not bothered about discussing any other aspects of the issue which could have far-reaching effects on how this country is going to be run. It is happy to have found a perceived government ally and lay into him big time.

The debate about how close a newsman should ever come to a party and whether it is advisable for journalists to be openly pro someone may be worthy of some debate. No less urgent in the thinking circles of Pakistan would be a ‘pro-reform’ party’s ability to — come the moment — side with and actively promote less forward-looking elements.

It would sound repetitive but the instance of a politician and his loyal party colleagues pointing fingers at a journalist for advocating in opposition to their party line brings back some disturbing memories. Once upon a time a political leader went to a Lahore campus where he was mauled by a bunch of students belonging to the banner that had long held the colleges hostage. The same humiliated politician emerged on the scene a few days later posing hand in hand with the leader of the same group whose goons had carried out the assault. He had made his choice of an ally then as he has picked up his friends now.

There might have been some journalists then appalled by the abject surrender of someone they pinned their hopes of salvation on. Now could those journalists be called as belonging to his camp for the disappointment they showed after the promising leader made that compromise?

The same political party’s positioning on a report that sought to find out what the all-powerful discussed amongst themselves reasserts its stance on standing on the side of the old in confrontation with change. If it wilfully loses the support of a few in the process it doesn’t appear to mind too much, so long as it can later declare those who disagree with it as someone’s agents.

The question is how such a party for change is expected to fare if and when in power? Intriguingly, since there is so much similarity between the party in power and its chief challenger on so many crucial issues, a look at the response of the government may lead to the easy assumption that power can only harden certain viewpoints.

Some of you might have heard of a most powerful opposition leader in this country who chose to speak the ‘truth’ at a ‘most sensitive’ moment in his beloved country’s history. It was about the identity of a sole surviving militant name Kasab — one amongst a group of 10 — who had reportedly crossed over into a neighbouring country and carried out a ‘butcher-like’ strike there.

There were many, including some ‘irresponsible’ newspapers which held on to their stories about the identity of the militant. They were mindful that the slightest indiscretion on their part could endanger peace, the ideal that this most powerful opposition politician in question openly pursued in those days. Until he spoke on the subject. He ‘confirmed’ the Pakistani origins of the attacker.

Let’s not fall into the pit where we end up separating the patriots, so-called, from those we can occasionally try for treason. Against the long acrimonious course that we have followed, merit lies in crossing that difficult bridge. Let’s find that opposition leader who had called out Kasab then and find out his reasons for doing so. He might have actually made the information public aiming for freedom from the ghosts that prevent forward movement.

The writer is Dawn’s resident editor in Lahore.

Published in Dawn, October 14th, 2016