This is how one dictionary defines paranoia: a mental disorder characterised by systematised delusions and the projection of personal conflicts, which are ascribed to the supposed hostility of others, sometimes progressing to disturbances of consciousness and aggressive acts believed to be performed in self-defence or as a mission.

Keeping this definition in view, think of the hostility meted out to Cyril Almeida and the newspaper that employs him. The first lesson? This condition is limited not just to individuals but can infect nation states also. And we cannot treat something when the management of a hospital is in denial about what infects them.

For a state, managing a crisis is easy when the story in question offends all powerful state actors equally. Or it affects some but others really do not care. But this was different. This story made the civilian leadership look good and the military look bad. Things, therefore, had to be managed from both ends. A denial by one side, especially the military, would not be enough -- the only way of managing this so-called crisis for the military establishment was to ensure the federal government was seen as taking action. And it duly obliged.

Once the cat was out of the bag, the state could not point to any clear law that had been violated. You can bet that they looked at the law, weighed the consequences of their actions, and when they came up short they invoked what we all do when the law does not serve our aims: principles. But that call too was hollow. There are no ‘universally recognised’ principles of journalism when it comes to reporting on matters relating to a disagreement between two arms of the state. Assuming, without conceding, that any universally recognised principles did exist to favour the state’s case, the state gave short shrift to principles with the next step: placing a journalist on the Exit Control List (ECL). An old bureaucrat once mused that if you have ever been of any consequence in Pakistan you should have made it to the ECL. Everyone who is or has been anyone worth talking about has been on it.

But I digress. To make a more serious point, putting Almeida’s name on ECL appears to be without any lawful justification. And maybe we should stop looking for justifications. Only one thing explains it: paranoia. The law regarding ECL is simple enough and perhaps even irrelevant. Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance gives the federal government the power to "prohibit any person or class of persons from proceeding from Pakistan to a destination outside Pakistan, notwithstanding the fact that such person is in possession of valid travel documents." You can file a representation for review against this measure before the Federal Government within 15 days.

While the constitution does not expressly, as per its text, recognise a fundamental right to travel abroad from Pakistan, there is enough precedent (and principles!) to argue that federal government cannot exercise its authority, regarding ECL, arbitrarily and without sufficient material to justify such a restriction. But the law is not relevant in this situation. The message is: this can still happen to anyone crossing limits.

Only the most naïve would believe that this was just the federal government’s call. If there were any doubt, the military leadership ensured it stood removed. A meeting of the ‘who’s who’ of the civil and military establishment took place before this announcement. The military’s reaction went from denial and another denial to pressurising the federal government into action. We do not know if anyone pushed back but the Interior Minister clearly felt the need to oblige -- without even an inquiry.

As I write this, the Interior Minister is saying the journalist’s name will be removed once the inquiry is complete. So he already knows any inquiry (one wonders under what law) will clear Almeida’s name. But who cares about the law? Reassuring then, I suppose, that there was no inquiry and paranoia about ‘why does he want to go to Dubai?’ spurred the state into action.

Also amusing, but more importantly disturbing, is the Interior Minister’s assertion (perhaps dictated) is that the Indian media used the Dawn story to undermine Pakistan. One would hope that the Interior Minister and the ISPR chief do not spend their evenings watching Indian media -- since going by the allegations made by Times Now (Indian news channel) during prime time, half the country should be under investigation. At the same time, the military establishment must realise that establishing a highly effective Twitter account does not solve all problems. Our own actions, or lack thereof, as a state will be talked about by the international media -- especially when it affects outsiders. I completely accept the point that a lot of criticism thrown Pakistan’s way by other countries is not nuanced, and often self-righteous, but there are better ways of managing our reactions.

This country was not going to fall apart after the Dawn story. This country and its institutions would have functioned just fine instead of fire-fighting another self-made crisis. We created a problem when there was none: paranoia.

The prime minister does not have it easy. His own past, the military establishment, non-state actors along with the willingness and ability of the state to control them has him in a fix. Maybe, let us assume, he also felt that the Dawn story unduly put him on the spot. But did he cave in or was he successful in telling the outside world, as well as people within Pakistan, that he needs more support?

The answer to that question may determine how other powers within the state apparatus see him now. But each state actor might come up with a different answer -- depending upon the paranoia affecting them. For his part, Sharif must immediately do all within his power to ensure that Dawn and Almeida receive an apology and do not face any further accusations.

For many, these events were another opportunity to label as traitor a journalist and a newspaper. These vile accusations and the nasty attacks on social media feed into the larger message: there are lines. And of course these exist in every state. But Pakistan’s press is stronger than most realise. It will emerge stronger from this latest bout of regressive state action. It is the press that allows citizens to keep their eyes and ears open in the face of state propaganda. Dawn and Almeida did their job -- and kudos to them. No amount of paranoia should take away from that.