Sorry, Pak can't just wash its hands off its minister's bounty

Pakistan would like some “respect”, its telegenic foreign minister Hina Rabbani Khar told Washington. But as Seema Sirohi pointed out in Firstpost   it’s hard to shed “misperceptions” when your own cabinet minister is putting a $100,000 bounty out on a filmmaker’s head. The real problem is not one renegade minister like Ghulam Ahmad Bilour stoking the flames. It’s the Pakistan government’s weak-kneed response. It has apparently expended all its fire and brimstone in protesting the idiotic film. Or it finds itself caught now in a bind of its own making. It has basically just distanced itself from the minister saying it’s his personal view, not the government’s official policy. This is not a Khomeini-style Supreme Leader fatwa just a Railways Minister going off the rails on his own. The Minister for Political Affairs, Maula Bakhsh Chandio shrugged off Bilour’s outrageous offer. He said the government had no concern with the bounty Bilour offered. He seemed more anxious to prove the Pakistan had done more than its fair share to condemn the film. Chandio said Pakistan was the first Muslim country to register a protest against it at an official level and announce a Love for the Holy Prophet holiday as well. [caption id=“attachment_467480” align=“alignleft” width=“380”]  Sometimes, Minister Khar change, like charity, begins at home. AP[/caption] Really, is that enough? Is a Railways minister not a representative of the government as much as Hina Rabbani Khar is? Can a minister get away with calling on his “Taliban bhaiyon” and his “Al-Qaeda bhaiyon” to join him on “this sacred mission”? Can a government just shrug it off because it’s the minister’s personal view and the money is not coming out of the government’s coffers? There are behind the scenes maneuverings to try and make Bilour withdraw his offer. The Nation reports that the Prime Minister has talked to the leadership of Bilour’s Awami National Party which has also disassociated itself from Bilour’s statement saying it was a personal statement not “party policy.” But “disassociate” is something one does from something distasteful. This is beyond “distasteful” – it’s rank irresponsible that a minister tries to fan the flames instead of even putting up a show of trying to douse them. The government obviously has its own political compulsions about tackling its own political allies. Manmohan Singh demonstrated that clearly when he remained a mute witness to the DMK leaders’ 2G shenanigans. The ANP told The Nation that with general elections approaching they cannot afford a rift in the party. Its acting president Haji Muhammad Adeel walked an even finer line. “Offering bounty for the killer of the moviemaker was a personal view of the minister but the party has concerns over his invitation to Al Qaeda,” Adeel told the media according to Dawn. ANP spokesman Zahid Khan also said that a secular party like the ANP firmly followed the philosophy of “non-violence.” “How can it support such a violent step?” So Bilour has slapped his party in the face when it comes to its own policy of non-violence and secularism. The party considers itself anti-Taliban and lost several leaders to insurgents. Bilour’s courting of the Taliban adds insult to injury. So why is he still in the party with its leaders doing the disassociation dance around him? Former foreign secretary of India, Kanwal Sibal writes in an op-ed today in The Telegraph that Manmohan Singh should put off a visit to Pakistan and wait for it to “deliver on terrorism first.”

Now if the prime minister of India says that he will go to Pakistan only if Pakistan demonstrates its sincerity by trying those responsible for Mumbai and the foreign minister of Pakistan is “appalled” that we raise the terrorism “mantra of the past”, this “old time” stuff, as she calls it, where is the meeting ground between the ways in which he and the Pakistani leadership see the issue?

Bilour has effectively shown his own government that this “old time” stuff remains as potent as ever. He has said if the US delivers the filmmaker he will kill him himself and be happy to be hanged for it. So why is he still a minister? There are some controversies one hopes will just blow over. There are some controversies that require more behind-the-scenes talk than on-stage fireworks. But sometimes a government has to show it’s in charge. Not just of organizing protests or Love the Prophet holidays but also of its own ministers. Distancing yourself from a movie you had nothing to do with, as Obama and Clinton have done, is one thing. Distancing yourself from a death threat (with cash rewards) issued by your own minister is another thing altogether. Khar told a thinktank in Washington that it was time to reverse the “negative narrative" when it came to Indo-Pak relations.

However what is the way that we are able to solve those problems? Is it through war? Is it through creating a narrative of more hostility, animosity and filtering minds of our next generation with the same narrative which we did with the previous generation.

Sometimes, Minister Khar change, like charity, begins at home. Sometimes you have to walk the talk.