AN organisation once wanted to get rid of an unwanted staffer, but the problem was that the person in authority didn’t want to take the initiative mainly out of fear that he would spoil his good-boss reputation.

Finally, he found a way out. He decided to go on leave for a few days. As he handed over temporary charge to his deputy, he told him how a particular employee was surplus to the office’s requirement and needed to be immediately shown the door. The acting head had little option but to ask the persona non grata to leave the next working day. The act earned the cruel man in charge of the operations ever so briefly some of the worst taunts of his professional career.

The plight of the honest gentleman who was just doing his job comes to mind as ‘forward-looking’ journalists indulge in what they have made a habit of: going after the interior minister, Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan, a man who is permanently and safely — some say irretrievably — stuck in the late 20th century.

This is all so unfair. When Chaudhry Nisar asks those fond of making commentaries on social media to behave he is only doing his job. He is on assignment and turning in a valiant performance, since not all that he wants to curb is in line with the current standards of keeping it decent and within reasonable limits. People have grown a tongue, and while you and I might not be regularly thrilled by the free exchange of ideas in the bazaar, the best option for us frequently may be that we retire —quickly — to the comfort and solitude of our homes.

By no stretch of the imagination is Chaudhry Nisar deserving of the title of one who repeatedly flees tough situations.

Not everyone has this luxury. Someone has to be chosen to take on the very sensitive task of controlling. Consequently, it can be safely assumed that the direction in which Chaudhry Sahib chooses to travel must have come after long and hard joint deliberations on the part of his bosses.

The assumption stands vindicated beyond a shadow of doubt since we all know that whoever it is that the interior minister considers himself answerable to, they are not known to leave it to the sole discretion of an associate, however proven his credentials may be and however long his association with the cause. It can be further guessed that those who employ the minister for executing the job also decide on the content of the message. Of course, the style of delivery, unmatchable as it is, is the minister’s own.

This should take care of quite a lot of the fluff that is made to surround the interior minister. Like a true committed member of the core group that has decided on a certain kind of action to be taken, he speaks in a most definite, matter-of-fact tone.

But the ideas behind the voice most definitely cannot be entirely and exclusively his. His is a show inspired by the collective he represents, his chin held high and his appearances mistakenly termed sporadic and too few by those who have absolutely no clue as to who it is actually that is frequently found missing from the scene.

By no stretch of the imagination is Chaudhry Nisar deserving of the title of one who repeatedly flees tough situations. He is there at crucial moments when others surreptitiously slip into less noticeable corners.

The interior minister is there when it really matters — like on this present occasion where he took up the microphone at the risk of being dubbed as the stern headmaster belonging to a bygone era. He is there uttering the most unfashionable thoughts, stressing how the red lines could never be done away with, how those expressing their thoughts on social media needed to be summoned by his spy agencies and made to realise how indiscreet they often are.

The limits have to be there, he insists in the face of considerable resistance by some of whose company has brought his party, the PML-N, or at least its leadership, its current progressive billing. He is absolutely wedded to the notion that there are certain institutions that cannot be as freely commented upon as others.

As he goes about his assignment, others from his group are conspicuous by their absence. The ministers go missing. The prime minister falls silent and usually has nothing to say on the topic of the day. The PML-N chatterboxes go numb as if by order. Only the tough — read: the likes of Chaudhry Nisar — speak when the issue is as fundamental as this. It is not the usual PML-N soirée where one speaker picks up the refrain from another adding his or her own decibels to make the argument overwhelming if not convincing.

In this case, there is no Talal Chaudhry picking up the baton from Daniyal Aziz Chaudhry and laying into his opponents with the trademark PML-N fervour. In this case our Chaudhry Sahib is alone — too able and proud to ask for any sidekicks to effectively convey the message.

It is cruel then that the critics who must pose as having escaped the 20th century are so sarcastic in their search for the interior minister during periods when he is ostensibly absent from stage. The opposition parties, especially an increasingly frustrated PPP, are keen on targeting the man who is there to forward with conviction what others shy away from because of one reason or another.

It is easy for anyone here to call the other names such as ‘Zia’s remnants’. If they had any guts, the opposition parties, the overcurious journalists and the so-called liberals generally would be locating and pointing out faults with the unreported huddles that lead to these solo performances by one minister who stands firm and apart.

The writer is Dawn’s resident editor in Lahore.

Published in Dawn, May 26th, 2017