| October 12, 2008 | Sunday | Shawwal 12, 1429 |
|
‘Civis Pakistanus sum’
IN 1847, the home of a British subject living in Athens, a Jew by the name of Don Pacifico, was vandalised and plundered by an anti-Semitic mob. After unsuccessfully appealing to the Greek government for compensation, he turned to the British government.
The British foreign secretary, Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston, took unilateral action in support of Pacifico by sending a Royal Navy squadron into the Aegean in 1850 to seize Greek ships and property equal to the value of Pacifico’s claims. The squadron eventually blockaded the port of Piraeus.
The blockade lasted two months and the affair ended only when the Greek government agreed to compensate Pacifico after Greek ships were seized by the Royal Navy. The British parliament took up the matter and after a fiery debate in June 1850 Palmerston’s action was condemned by a majority vote. It was then that Palmerston made his famous five-hour Civis Romanus sum speech in which he declared that “as the Roman, in the days of old, held himself free from indignity when he could say Civis Romanus sum, so also a British subject, in whatever land he may be, shall feel confident that the watchful eye and the strong arm of England will protect him against injustice and wrong.”
Westminster (upon which we are supposedly modelled) still has clout, and citizens of the United Kingdom may still rely upon their government, when overtaken by trouble abroad, to come to their succour and aid. This, sadly, does not apply to the Government of Pakistan which now finds itself, in so many cases, unable to offer protection or help to its citizens who rightly or wrongly are detained, or harassed, by officials of foreign governments all over this world. The green passport and the declaration that one is a Pakistani is today an immediate condemnation.
How, just how, is this new government, made up mainly of old and tried would-be politicians who have failed us in the past, and which is beset by myriad problems for which solutions are a far cry, going to make any inroads into improving the doleful ‘image’ projected by Pakistan which, if one takes any credence from the foreign media, is in as much of a meltdown as is the notorious global economy? The ‘image’ projected by our leadership is also a hindrance to any improvement in the national ‘image.’
The ‘image’ was brought home to me very clearly on my last visit to Dubai, this past May. I landed wearing an off-white linen suit (with a tie) and a Panama hat. At the immigration counter was a ninja-like woman. From what I could see of her, she was young and attractive, and her manner was charming. She looked at my Mobil-oil green passport, looked up at me, looked down at the passport photo, and said, “You don’t look like a Pakistani.” Used to hearing such remarks, I kept my silence. She then turned to consult her superior.
Standing behind me was a fellow compatriot, awaiting his turn. He whispered to me, “Entirely your fault. You don’t look like a taxi driver.” Not that he did, with his trousers and shirt! The young woman, receiving clearance from the ‘higher’ official, eventually stamped me in.
Now, what is written in our green passports? The director general, immigration and passports, declares: “Ministry of Interior, Government of Pakistan, requires and requests in the name of the President of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan all those to whom it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance and to afford the bearer such assistance and protection as may be necessary.” These are but words that fall on deaf ears and blind eyes worldwide.
Our interior ministry is run by an unelected man, Rahman Malik, who so far has proved to be pathetically inept at rendering any protection to the citizens of his own country. What is the weekly average tally of suicide-bomber blasts all over the country since he assumed charge of the interior six months ago? And let us never forget that it was under his watch that the tragedy of Dec 27 took place, eliminating Benazir Bhutto, whose return to the political scenario in Pakistan was largely ‘arranged’ by his interaction between BB and British and American officialdom which had decided that the days of President Gen Pervez Musharraf were over and that the party of the people would replace him.
The president, in whose name Malik operates, was never to be part of the plan put in place for Pakistan by the sole superpower and its British ally. His entry on to our political backwash was accidental, a quirk of fate. Asif Zardari now finds himself all-powerful in this nuclear-armed country, beset by terrorism, and under the ‘arrangement’ negotiated after his wife’s death he has little option but to toe the American line.
Those who stoutly maintain that Pakistan should opt out of any participation in the war known as the war on terror must surely by now realise that the roots of this war lie firmly in our territory and that right now, with the Taliban playing havoc with our security forces, it is as much Pakistan’s war as it is America’s. One thing that Zardari knows, from his position of weakness, and about which he is making all the right noises, is the fact that Pakistan has a problem with terrorism and that the terrorists must be taken on and subdued if this country is to return to any semblance of normalcy.
‘In camera’ joint sessions of parliament will not at all alleviate worries, concerns, or the situation at large. Neither the army, nor the ISI, nor the president can even think of revealing the truth to a large body of politicians, most of whom are unreliable and many of whom are at odds with each other. Such cosmetic measures, non-serious, help not a whit and are a waste of time and money.
Zardari’s much-criticised visit to the States last month was in many ways an embarrassment, but one positive factor was his interview given to Bret Stephens of The Wall Street Journal. What he said on the subject of relations with India and on Kashmir revealed flashes of realism and has been welcomed warmly abroad but castigated at home — attempts have been made to deny that he ever uttered them. However, when it comes to the credibility of the WSJ or of the redundant and noxious information ministry, one must opt for the former.
arfc@cyber.net.pk
