There is so much to address this week: the droning of Mullah Mansour; the Interior Minister’s statement on the droning of Mullah Mansour, the CII and Maulana Shirani’s ‘protection of women’ and PEMRA’s banning of contraceptive l advertisements, and the Chahbahar port. And sovereignty of course. Where do I begin?

On the killing of Mr. Mansoor well inside Balochistan, what more can be said than that we are super cool hosts of terrorists. These gents live, procreate and practice their trade with impunity in Pakistan. In this country of mine where I fear to tread, they thrive. And when the US drones them, we cry sovereignty. Official statement upon statement condemns Pakistan’s breach of sovereignty but none addresses the question of what the terrorist was doing on Pakistan’s soil. Let’s also not forget Osama bin Laden’s years long sojourn in Abottabad nor the discovery and killing of many other terrorists on the land of the pure. To top it all, the minister of the interior makes a laughable speech by turns denying Mullah Mansour’s presence or death on Pakistani soil, denying breach of territorial sovereignty, condemning breach of sovereignty by the US, asserting cancellation of ID cards to Mullah Mansour, calling the drone attack illegal, unacceptable and uncalled for, denying that drones ever entered Pakistani territory, declaring Mullah Mansour to be the dove of peace and flag bearer of all peace talks and what not. Whilst not confirming the identity of the terrorist killed in the US drone strike, the gent confirmed Mullah Mansoor’s charred remains were claimed by relatives to take to Afghanistan and that said remains had been handed over! Such a mixed up speech ne’er I heard; nor a more laughable one. The gent should have decided ahead of speeching whether it was Mullah Masour or not, whether the US breached sovereignty or not. The fact that he did not merely contributed to make him laughing stock for the whole country, if not the whole world.

Of the CII and Maulana Shirani, the less said the better. Of the positive recommendations being lauded in the media, they are completely irrelevant: they are already catered to in either the constitution or the penal code of Pakistan. No thanks to Maulana Shirani. The ‘rights’ of women the council has held forth upon are ground realities being practiced for decades in this country. The rights of husbands to ‘lightly’ beat their wives for the most gobsmacking reasons the unlettered clerics speak of, one doesn’t know where to begin.. So atrocious are the assumptions of women being complete second citizens and complete idiots. So the husband should beat the wife is she doesn’t bathe after sex? The husband should beat the wife if she doesn’t bathe after her periods are over? Does this even merit a debate? Does it deserve to be lent the dignity of ‘analyis’? I think not. If the parliament does not steal up the courage to disband this insane body altogether, the Pakistani polity must gather the wherewithal to ignore these women and sex crazed old men. The key is to completely ignore these ignoramuses.

Of PEMRA now. Sigh. What has gone wrong with the body now? Power? ‘Have power, will misuse’? In a country where population growth rate is set to increase the population by one third in the next 35 years, PEMRA finds it suitable to ban condom advertisements, citing societal values. Would PEMRA care to expand on what societal values it speaks of? We are already horrendously short of fundamental services like water, electricity and gas. How PEMRA proposes to address these whilst keeping the population in the dark with regard to family planning measures and tools is beyond imagination. This body has gone beyond its mandate to regulate the media. It has assumed powers to restrict speech and the dissemination of information. Is that, or should that, be the mandate of any executive body? PEMRA could have started a dialogue on how the content of such advertisements could be regulated. But to outright ban advertisements on products that are manufactured and marketed legally in the country? To deprive the most vulnerable sections of society from information much needed is ‘regulation’?