A change in the scene

As suddenly as in a theatrical production, the scene has changed twice for Save the Children – and possibly for other NGOs based in the country. Following the dramatic sealing of the giant international group’s offices late on Thursday, with the terse notification ordering police to place locks on doors and close down offices, the decision has been reversed with the interior ministry ordering the INGO be allowed to continue working in the country.
We do not know why the decision to kick Save the Children out of Pakistan was taken; we do not quite understand why it was reversed. It just seems to suggest an enormous amount of immaturity and uncertainty within the government. Rumour has it that the organisation’s alleged association with the jailed Dr Shakil Afridi was the reason for the crackdown on it.
Save the Children has denied for years that Dr Afridi did anything more in association with it than to speak at a few seminars that it had organised. Hundreds of other doctors had done the same. Considering the organisation works primarily for the welfare of children in terms of meeting health, nutrition and educational needs, it is hardly surprising that Dr Afridi should have spoken. If there is more to the story, it is not in the public eye.
The same rumour chain also suggests US pressure led to the reversal of the decision. This too says a great deal about how our government functions, how it is influenced and why things happen the way they do.
But perhaps it is not worth going into too much depth over something that now seems to be an idiocy. What is more relevant is the broader attitude we are seeing from the government, with other NGOs – including strictly local ones – receiving subtle and not so subtle warnings of various kinds. Essentially, they suggest the government is hostile to NGOs. This has been a feature of PML-N governments in the past. But this time round, there is a certain element of curiosity in the behaviour.
Under the National Action Plan, the government claims to be going out against terrorism and extremism in all its forms. In such an effort, its natural allies should be the NGOs working to uplift people, to battle hatred directed against minorities and advocating rights for press groups including women. This runs diametrically opposite to the militant agenda in many ways. But instead, the government appears to have decided to turn these potential friends into enemies, even though what they say and do at the moment seems to run parallel to each other.
The hostility is difficult to understand in some ways; easy in others. It appears the government is simply unwilling to tolerate dissent of any kind and has been especially annoyed by the fury over the recent spate of executions with at least 152 persons hanged in less than six months. While Chaudhry Nisar insists this is a vital element of the war against militancy, NGOs have asked quite what purpose is being served by walking people to the gallows one after the other. Those who it is said were juveniles at the time of the crime committed by them have also been executed.
In the meanwhile, organisations that have been linked with militancy and extremism in various ways seem to have been spared any kind of warning or threats. Unlike the NGOs, which follow a more liberal discourse, these groups remain free to function with no policemen standing outside their doors carrying locks in hand. The discrepancy in behaviour raises questions about quite what the government is attempting to achieve in its battle against terror and where the current strategies will take us.
We know that members of the current cabinet have traditionally been particularly hostile to the NGO sector. But as the government has itself asserted, ‘national interest’ in its true sense should override all else, and right now national interest would seem to demand that all forces should be willing to oppose the steady onslaught of extremism stand together. Certainly, in this the government could use whatever backing it is able to muster. There are fewer and fewer people in the country willing to speak out against militancy or religious bias. Those who are should be supported rather than labelled as somehow working against the state. The confusion needs to be cleared.
The government in the centre, which leads the effort to make our country a little less violent, a little more tolerant, must explain precisely what its policies are regarding autonomous groups operating in society. The constitution of course guards the right to association, provided of course that other laws are not violated by these associations. Those working within the legal realm must be allowed to do so even if they voice opinions that do not conform to those of officialdom. We need to open up space for more and more voices to be heard.
In an identical fashion, those who do violate the law, spread hatred directed against any group or advocate violence must be acted against. We know, simply from the wall chalkings we see in all our major cities and many of our smaller towns that there are plenty of such organisations at work in the country. Surely the primary effort of government, if it is truly committed to guarding the interests of its people as it says it is, should be to go after these groups rather than others who are working in areas of development, advocacy or providing services of some kind to people.
Paranoia is always dangerous. We seem to be seeing a new wave of it. The thoughtless actions and statements coming from New Delhi have promoted some of this and geopolitical realities including the liaison with China add to the complications. But paranoia should never be permitted to determine policies that have an impact on people.
The threat now hanging over NGOs could have an impact on lives. These groups will inevitably be less ready to speak out on issues that are seen as controversial, including capital punishment, a matter we have always been extremely reluctant to discuss at any level.
While there is a definite need to regulate the NGO sector, there must not be a witch hunt directed against the dwindling liberal forces that still exist within our country. The space available to them has been eaten away chunk by chunk by other influences that have come in over the years. But we should also keep in mind that to a certain extent, NGOs are responsible for defending themselves. They must combine to take a stand on issues rather than engaging in a constant tussle to obtain the dwindling funding that is still available to them.
The government too needs to watch out against the possibility of becoming even more internationally isolated than we already are. Major organisations including the Red Cross have essentially moved out of Pakistan because of the threat posed by militants. We must not drive others away. Pakistan needs groups that work for harmony, for unity and for the welfare of people. It is not just to see spies lurking within all of them.
Where infringements occur, they must be penalised. Where they do not, work must continue so that our nation can stay in pace with the rest of the world and we can learn to accept criticism as well as praise when it comes in.
The writer is a freelance columnist and former newspaper editor.
Email: kamilahyat@hotmail.com