ORIGINALLY, this was to be a piece on parliament, which is supreme and which must try to accommodate all points of view. But then speaker Ayaz Sadiq intervened with his gag order. He said ‘no Panama’. He said the subject was sub judice. He was quite abrasive in his tone. That must have left the old believers to deal with insurmountable doubts. What to write about then?

Originally, the idea was to discuss the PTI’s return to parliament. The occasion was to be used to mourn and mock the man who could do little more than earn a reputation for being a specialist in U-turns in this country of rampant ‘howevers’.

Two ‘howevers’ or two U-turns and you are back on course. However, this was considered to be quite an exception by the detractors keen on making fun of the challenger. There were just too many ‘howevers’ in his journey for some people’s liking and for most of us to be able to keep track of.

Pakistanis simply love to write letters to addresses that are non-existent and people who are no more.

Originally, the desire was to discuss the nuance of the no-movement. Wanted to look one more time for valid and less valid but politically more fulfilling reasons that kept so many of the known campaigners for truth away from this PTI-led activity to unearth Panama. That had the making of a popular movement only if a sufficient number could somehow be convinced to join even in spirit.

It is still a little odd why such a large number from among those who mattered did not have common cause with PTI. But a few aspects are easier to understand. Such as the PPP’s reluctance to join the PTI. The former can only be reinvented in the wake of a weakened PTI. If you agree with the theory you will know the PPP will not join a move led by the PTI. It will, instead, assign itself the lead role, as it is doing now in pursuance of its four demands, and then ask the PTI to join its initiative.

Was it personal likes or dislikes that keep the others away? A hatred for Imran Khan, if such a word is ever permitted to be used in opinion pieces? Was it the fear of the chief protester eventually turning out to be a bigger problem than the ones he was seeking to remove or at least expose by a method provided for by law? Was it simply an attempt at keeping the facts concealed in the name of continuity and longevity?

What was it that kept so many amongst us from agreeing even in theory with Imran Khan’s demands for a fair probe into allegations of corruption? It was surprising that even those with considerable foresight who had somehow convinced themselves to willy-nilly associate themselves with Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry’s cause a few years ago were so reluctant to even speak the line — that that they supported Imran Khan in principle.

Some of them chose the comfort of the fence over the instability of taking a definite position — politicians, activists, lawyers, media persons, all choosing the black and white of the Sharif-Imran battle mostly on the Sharif side.

It is not clear whether we are allowed to look for answers to all these questions, after Mr Ayaz Sadiq’s latest ruling. It seems that despite the strict order by the custodian of the house where people’s representatives sit, there is no escape from what is by far the hottest topic in the land. Even if that is true, some other method should have been invented — or copied — to drive home the message.

Pakistanis are adept at falling back on the kam chalao or ad hoc way of doing it and saying it in a roundabout way, unlike the direct method chosen by opposition leader Khurshid Shah in the National Assembly on Wednesday.

We cannot berate those who do not speak the truth from all forums, not least of them from the platform of parliament. We cannot, unlike the opposition leader, recall how a prime minister today chooses to hide himself behind a letter from the prince of a small kingdom.

Yes this is what we can all do instead of asking direct questions of those in authority and those who must be held accountable. This appears to have been all through quite a popular task in the country that discourages direct questions. Pakistanis simply love to write letters to addresses that are non-existent and people who are no more. There is this peculiarity to the letters and the spirits in this beloved land.

There’s been a flurry of letter writing in recent times as well, which could among other things suggest that it is still a wee bit difficult for the folks here to give up this old method of communication.

Sometime ago, someone wrote a moving letter to an address which did not exist, the twist coming when this letter was actually responded to, and there was actually a whole trail of them which followed. This kind of revived an old convenient route and suddenly there was a pile of them lying before you — letters written to the dead for the benefit of the living, everything in our usual roundabout way, which may in turn prompt calls for the revival of the original letter itself.

The letter was once written to invite a foreign royal to attack the land — to rescue the subjugated masses from the clutches of the cruel local rulers. That may totally be against the ideals of democracy today but maybe we need to put pen to paper and ask the princes whether they knew just how unpopular certain of their activities made them here.

The thought is obviously not related to the prince in Panama for that would amount to violating Mr Speaker’s order for silence. Perhaps one can ask what all these royals think about the negative publicity their houbara hunting expeditions here generate. Or have they also banned that kind of thinking in the national interest?

The writer is Dawn’s resident editor in Lahore.

Published in Dawn, December 16th, 2016