Although this is a book about death, it really is a book that makes you think about how to live. It asks important questions about what makes life worth living and how to find purpose. It shows you how to confront despair and exhibit courage.

I had dreaded reading this book because I knew what it was about and I was not ready to subject myself to a gut wrenching, ugly crying, deeply moving read. I don’t know what finally convinced me to pick this book up from my shelf and read. I finished reading it on a plane and I am not ashamed to admit I cried many tears in a plane full of people as I read it. This book is beautifully written and so intelligently thought through. You can tell that it was written by a remarkable mind going through an extraordinary life event that has allowed him to think deeply and clearly about the existential questions haunt us like what does it mean to live? And what kind of life is worth living.

Here are some of the things I have learnt from reading it:

1. Dying is inevitable.
2. Death is never easy but surrounding yourselves with the people you love as you go is what counts.
3. Despite the sorrow and pain you feel, remembering the love, laughter and life that you have shared with your loved ones will make the final journey easier.
4. Focus on the happiness and wonder you have experienced rather than the pain and sorrow you feel in that moment.
5. Prolonging time is not the same as prolonging life. When breath becomes air and person you love ceases to be who they were, it’s time to let go.
6. A mere heartbeat does not a human make.
7. They tell you to live life each day but that is difficult to do. So make plans. But make them shorter term. And don’t make them inflexible. The best made long term plans have no chance of standing up to the inevitable turns your life will take.
8. Always have a goal to work towards. Goals give life meaning.
9. If you want to be good at something then you have to spend time at it. Practice does make perfect.
10. Find a calling not a job (not everyone is lucky enough to be able to do this but strive for it if you can)
11. If you believe that God does not exist because science does not explain God then you also need to believe that love, meaning, hope and all those other things we strive for also don’t exist because science doesn’t explain them either. There are no good explanations for the things that make life worth living.
12. We do not understand everything. Our understanding is limited by the constraints of our mind. Make room for humility and know your own limitations. This will make room for you to believe in and strive for the things that give life meaning.
13. Religion provides strength and solace when the mind cannot.
14. Love is a wonderful and transformative thing. Those who have it in their lives are truly blessed.
15. Reading makes you a better and wiser person.
16. Document your life. Write. You never know who it might help one day.

In 1965, my grandfather, Major Ahsan Omar, was fighting in the Battle of Chawinda, near Sialkot. It was one of the fiercest battles in the war; the largest tank battle after World War II. Amidst the heavy tank shelling and artillery fire as guns thundered and planes roared in the skies above, it did not always seem like those who fought in the Sialkot Sector would make it home. Many brave men didn’t.

One night when the fighting was particularly intense, my grandfather also believed that death was imminent. Fearing that he would not see his family again, he began writing a letter to my mother, his only child at the time. He wanted to say a final goodbye and offer some words of wisdom from the battlefield. But he was never able to finish the letter as the fighting resumed. In the chaos of war, the letter got left behind on the battlefield as his division of tanks moved to a different position.

The unfinished letter was soon discovered by a journalist from Jang. Reading what he thought was a dead soldier’s final letter to his daughter, he was moved to submit the letter to the paper which then published it. Since the letter was unfinished and unsigned, the paper published it as “An unknown soldier’s letter to his daughter.” (Ek gumnaam sipahi ka khat apni beti ke naam).

The morning the letter was published, Nana’s father opened the paper to read it. He saw the letter. And while the paper did not name the soldier, the soldier who had written the letter had named everyone in the house. So he recognized the writing and the author and assumed his only son had died in battle. He hid the paper not wanting others in the house to read it. It was not a piece of writing he wished to preserve. So the paper was destroyed.

Later, when Nana returned home, no one cared for the letter he had written. Everyone was glad to have him home and alive. The letter was forever lost.

My mother, who was only 5 at the time and too young to read or comprehend the seriousness of the letter, wishes she could read it now. We have been unable to find it. I am hoping that someone out there, possibly from Jang and Geo will help us access the paper’s archives to locate the letter.

While this quest and letter are both deeply personal, I feel in some ways they are also not. The letter written by my grandfather to his daughter could be any and every soldier who faces death on the battlefield. It is possibly a window into the very personal moments of reckoning that must happen when a soldier chooses country over family. It is, I imagine one of the most difficult choices a person must make but many have made this choice so that we may enjoy the freedom that we do. So this also a request on behalf of all the families left behind who were never lucky enough to get a letter.

6 years ago,  I wrote “Against the good and bad advice of a majority of friends and family members – I have decided to return to Pakistan. I dont know if this a wise decision – I merely know that it is the right decision for me at this time. With time, the correctness of my belief might change and this might become the wrong decision – but until it does, I hope to use my blog to keep track of this transition and use it to (hopefully) reaffirm the correctness of my decision for today and all my tomorrows.”

On some days when America offered great company and conversation, or interactions with people that were interesting and interested in things around the world I wondered if I wanted to return to a country that was fast becoming a bastion of bigotry and violence over things as insignificant as lawn suits or as profound as one’s religious beliefs.

Sometimes it was the walks in Central Park or the ability to blend anonymously into the humid New York summer nights that made me want to never leave the country I had come to know and love as a second home.

My decision to come back seemed particularly wrong when Parliament passed the Nizam e Adl Regulation and handed over Swat to the violent bigots. I was so angry that I punched a wall and typed out this long heartfelt article demanding that I want my country back from the bigots.

But when I did eventually return to Pakistan in 2010 and started work at the Jinnah Institute with Sherry Rehman – I witnessed first hand the psychosis that had gripped Pakistan. As we worked on things that seemed like no-brainers like the protection of minorities and religious freedoms, I realized that it was not just benign apathy and neglect that prevented Pakistanis from protecting fellow citizens. There were powerful forces of obscurantism that enjoyed popular support that would resort to murder and violence to silence all voices that dared to challenge their world view.

As these forces grew more powerful and brave, progressive voices like Governor Salman Taseer and Shahbaz Bhatti were silenced; the rest of us who were no where near as brave or courageous also grew silent. I self censored and did not talk about religion in public.  I avoided arguments with the moral police. I bent my head over my phone and typed out a few furious tweets. But that was all. I went about my work every day. I tried to search for silver linings to reaffirm the decision I had made 7 years ago. But those silver linings seemed fewer and further apart.

Till today.

Things seem to have come full circle as justice has been done. The rule of law upheld and Mumtaz Qadri – the man who assassinated Governor Taseer for speaking up for the rights of a poor Christian woman accused of Blasphemy – has met the fate meted out to him by the law.

Many of us thought that given how powerful the religious right has become in Pakistan – the government would not dare touch their poster boy. We were wrong. Never have I been more relieved about being wrong.

The sordid saga that started in Pakistan’s history with the brutal murder of Governor Taseer for speaking up for the oppressed has almost come full circle today. It will be complete when Aasia Bibi the woman he spoke up for, is allowed to go free.

But till then, I am thankful to the Government of Pakistan for letting the law take its course and giving me a reason once again to believe I made the right decision  7 years ago.

The Lashkar-e-Jhangvi has claimed responsibility for this attack which targeted a school in a Shia majority area of Hangu. The LeJ has a history of targeting members of the Shia community in Pakistan and have been behind some of the most violent and deadly attacks against Shias. This attack, foiled by the sacrifice of Aitzaz, is a sobering reminder that the beast we fight has no morals or principles. Our enemy will stoop to even attacking a school full of children.

The attack on the school in Hangu was not part of the series of attacks against schools that have occurred in KPK. It was a part of the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi’s violent campaign against the Shias. Aitzaz lost his life fighting the enemy we call sectarianism that pre-dates the war on terror or the use of drones in Pakistan.

Let Aitzaz’s death leave us in no doubt that this war is our war. These are monsters of our own making who have gained strength from our complacency.  In the wake of his death, we have mourned him and glorified him in the media. We have tweeted tributes and eulogies. The government has decided to honor Aitzaz (posthumously) with the Sitara-e-Shujaat, a civilian award for bravery in the country. But justice will not be done to the memory of Aitzaz until we commit to eradicating groups responsible for sectarian violence as well as the ideology that supports and nurtures them.

This is no easy task. This requires us to root out the hate that is entrenched within our textbooks, that is sown in sermons across Pakistan and casually thrown about in drawing room conversations. This requires cutting of funds and financing to groups that parade as charities and collect large sums of money from small traders and individuals. This means severing political alliances with groups that control urban centers within the province of Punjab and adopting a zero tolerance policy for perpetrators of sectarian hate.

The battlegrounds for this war will not be the wilds of FATA but the settled areas of Punjab. This war will require us to arm, equip and train the police force. The nature of this battle will be different from the one that is being waged against the TTP in the tribal areas of Pakistan. This battle will be tougher. But this is a war we must fight and win if we are to preserve Pakistan. And we cannot continue to outsource our toughest battles to children no matter how courageous.

There is need to provide the police with the protection and equipment required to operate against these groups who are heavily armed and well funded. In recent years, with the focus on the war on terror not enough has been done to provide the police with the protective or investigative gear required to take on sophisticated terror networks. Pakistan must invest more in the police force which will have to form the frontline against the war on sectarian terrorists.

Pakistani author, Nadeem Aslam once said, “Pakistan produces people of extraordinary bravery. But no nation should ever require its citizens to be that brave.” The average citizen should never have to make the choice that Aitzaz made. The state should be equipped to protect him or her. Pakistan should not have to count on the bravery of individuals like Aitizaz Hasan as its only defense against sectarianism. There needs to be a better plan in place.

I hope that when President Mamnoon Hussain stands before Aitzaz’s father to present him with the Sitara-e-Shujaat for Aitzaz; it is not just a medal that he pins to his chest in honor of a courageous son. I hope that award is accompanied with a concrete strategy for ensuring the safety of children like Aitzaz across Pakistan. Aitzaz’s memory demands it and the existence of Pakistan needs it.

Originally Published by the Jinnah Institute http://jinnah-institute.org/honoring-aitzaz-hasan-fighting-the-demons-of-sectarianism/

My grandparents lived in this house before my parents and I moved here. I first got to know this house as the place where I came to be pampered. And somehow over the years our relationship never changed. As time went by, 167 continued to be my friend who guaranteed shelter from life’s most troublesome storms. Whether it was those sleepless nights before the O-level’s exam results or recovering from my first bout of true heartbreak – 167 was the place where I could always fall asleep after a good cry and wake up feeling better.

Even when its roof leaked and paint peeled, it held it together to welcome all those that sought refuge here or came in search of a meal or a laugh or a pillow to cry on. It was always my little house with a big heart. Somehow within its small rooms, there was always place to house friends and family. And in its tiny kitchen there was always food enough for any who needed it.

167 taught me life’s most important lessons – including the lesson on how to walk! Since I was one, it’s been holding my hand and teaching me how to overcome my fears. It’s constantly been creating opportunities for laughter and thankfulness. It has been building for me fond memories that could easily last a lifetime.

This house also saw us through some very difficult times. It stood by us through sickness, death and financial crisis.  It bore the scars of the bad times stoically. It became my unchanging constant in a troubled world that offered a constant supply of comfort. I cried to 167 when I couldn’t cry to others. I whispered to it all my troubles and secrets and once I had unburdened my troubles onto its pillows and walls – the situation always seemed less dire.

167 like a true friend sent me off on all of life’s adventures with a big smile and the promise to be waiting for me whenever I came back – excited or weary or jubilant and triumphant or beaten and sad. 167 sent me off on my greatest adventure to date – college. In the tiny dining room of 167, college application materials dotted every surface and towered over the dining table as I tried to convince schools across the world to give a chance. And when hope wore thin – 167 listened patiently to my rants and told me to hang in there.  Good news first came to 167 in a letter in a white envelope with a blue bow on it and grey bulldog.

Tomorrow, 167 sends me off on another adventure. But tonight, before I leave, I will cry to 167 one last time and hope that I wake up in the morning feeling better.

Nine current and recent visiting faculty members at Law and Policy Department at LUMS have issued a statement in support of Prof Abid Hussain Imam which was printed in Pakistan Today. The statement reads:

“We are current and recent faculty of the Law and Policy Department at the Lahore University of Management Sciences and write to take issue with a misleading news report entitled “LUMS teacher found guilty of sexually harassing student” printed in the 1 November 2014 issue of Pakistan Today.

We believe that the article, as well as the underlying Ombudsman’s report, does a great disservice to our colleague, Professor Abid Hussain Imam. As current or recent members of the Department, we are collectively familiar with all the facts and circumstances relating to this case, as well as the individuals involved. As such, we feel compelled to set the record straight.

The incident in question occurred in proverbial “broad daylight” in a public corridor within the Law and Policy Department, in the presence of several witnesses including the head of the Law Department. The entire proceedings were captured by a corridor security camera and the footage has been made available to all parties, and has been viewed by us.

Summary Argument: Harassment does not happen in daylight or public places

Problem with argument: Yes it does. Ask a woman. Or even men. Visit a bazaar. Get out of your privileged cocoons and cars and travel in public transport in broad daylight. Then revisit preposterous claim. 

Additional Problem: In what capacity was this video made available to you? Were you part of the official investigation committee formed at LUMS? Or is all CCTV footage at LUMS public property that anyone can view it? Why did you have access to this video in the first place? Why is this evidence being treated so lightly that it is available to all and sundry?

It shows Professor Imam was standing in a corridor in front of his office when a group of students stopped by and engaged in conversation. At one point in the course of this group conversation, Professor Imam is seen momentarily putting his hand on the shoulder of one of the assembled students. The entire episode of the briefest tap on the student’s shoulder took at most a second before Professor Imam quickly withdrew his hand.

Summary Argument: He tapped her briefly on the shoulder.

Problem with the argument: The esteemed signatories of this report omit telling the readers that what is not visible on footage filmed from far off but was accepted by Professor Imam is that in this briefest of taps he actually unzipped a 3 inch zipper detail on the students shirt and exposed her shoulder.

Additional problem: So it seems like the guys writing this statement claiming to know all the facts don’t actually know all of them. Their initial claim of knowing all the facts and setting the record straight, therefore, goes out the window here. Please stop reading further. These guys don’t actually have all the facts. Or maybe they did have all the facts but then that would mean they are lying by omission and deliberately misleading the reader. I sincerely hope that that is not the case.

The students lingered on for a while and then walked away. There appeared nothing to complain about. This was the entire extent of the incident as recorded by CCTV footage.

Summary Argument: No one reacted in the video like something was wrong. Therefore nothing was wrong.

Problem with Argument: A common reaction to harassment or any kind of unwelcome contact is not some fit of screaming rage or running about in frantic circles. It is most often silence. Do your research. Ask the experts.

Realizing that even if this inadvertent action might have been inappropriate, Professor Imam immediately apologized to the student on the spot, if any offense had been caused. That should have been the end of the matter. Professor Imam discussed the matter with the LUMS Vice Chancellor who advised him to offer another apology, which he complied with.

Summary Argument: He said sorry. What more do you want?

Problem with argument: I can’t even begin to deconstruct this one. A man saying sorry to a woman should be enough. Get with the program ladies!

However, the student in question nevertheless decided to press a formal complaint. There is a perception that in pressing the matter she was encouraged by another Law Department faculty member who, during that very period, was being exposed by Professor Imam for falsely representing his educational qualifications.

Summary Argument: He said sorry. She still complained!! Another Professor helped her and egged her on due to a personal vendetta with the accused.

Problem with Argument: The implicit assumption that women or anyone at the receiving end of inappropriate physical contact should be satisfied with a five letter word is infuriating. The price for humiliating or harassing another person in public is NOT sorry.

As for the other professor – he might have encouraged or supported the student. But it doesn’t change what Professor Imam did. The student was well within her rights with or without support from others to complain about what happened to the relevant authorities.

A committee comprising two females and a male faculty member was constituted. After an extensive investigation, interviewing witnesses and a review of the video footage, it found Professor Imam innocent of sexual harassment both under University policy as well as under legal strictures.

We collectively believe that, given the witness accounts as well as the video recording, there was no other possible outcome to this investigation. Once the entire record was made available, it conclusively demonstrated that the student’s written complaint (already a part of the record) was grossly exaggerated as well as inaccurate.

Summary Argument: A committee at LUMS found the professor not guilty of sexual harassment. The record demonstrates “conclusively” that the student was exaggerating and lying. This guy is innocent.

Problem with Argument: The accused admitted unzipping the student’s shirt. A fact you overlook when you pass judgment. But let us assume that this was an honest mistake and not intended to be sexual harassment. But the student felt harassed – regardless of his intentions or your perceptions.

Even the committee defined his act of unzipping a student’s shirt highly inappropriate – but you also forget to mention the fact that the committee at LUMS found him guilty of inappropriate conduct. Something in the student’s statement that you think was exaggerated and fabricated must have been correct.

It should also be noted that while this matter was pending more than 120 of Professor Imam’s students signed a petition in his support and defense, lauding his excellence as a teacher as well as his professionalism and integrity.

Summary Argument : 120 kids think he is an excellent teacher. They signed a petition.

Problem with Argument: Bill Clinton left office with the highest end-of –office approval ratings of any American President since World War II. He was popular too. He also committed adultery and lied under oath.

Despite being found innocent, Professor Imam in protest, on principle, resigned from his position at the University in May 2014.

For her part, the student took the matter to the Government Ombudsman whose report your paper has featured in its story. From what we know of the conduct of the Ombudsman’s inquiry, we have serious reservations about its process, and understand it displayed scant regard for the procedures and protections mandated and envisaged by law.

Summary Argument: We are not sure but either in protest for something (not sure what he was protesting) or on principle Professor Imam resigned. The girl still didn’t let go and took the case to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman did a bad job, disregarded due process and law and produced an incorrect verdict.

Problem with Argument: First please decide if he resigned in protest or on principle and let us know. Secondly, if you have problems with the legal process or don’t like the outcome as a result – then take it up with a legal authority. Challenge the decision. Who’s stopping you?

However, we write now primarily because we believe this entire process has wronged a valued colleague, and has led our University and particularly its fledgling Law Department to lose one of its most talented members.

These are the facts as we know them. We recognize that sexual harassment at workplace is a real issue and needs to be fought tooth and nail. However, false accusations and tainted processes only hurt this cause.”

Summary Argument: We believe, our colleague, who touched a student without her consent or approval is the wronged party. And the reputation of our law school is suffering so we needed to speak out. Oh and yeah sexual harassment is a thing. We know it. We are actually trying to create a safer environment in public places by standing up for a teacher who stepped out of his bounds and made unwelcome physical contact with a student. Thanks!

Problem with Argument: You’re trying to create a safer environment in public places by standing up for a teacher who stepped out of his bounds and made unwelcome physical contact with a student.  You want to be the good guys standing up for truth and justice. But you come across those just standing up for the old guard of the Pakistani elite. And your students and others not blinded by personal bias can see that. 

The statement was signed by Osama Siddique, Bilal Hassan Minto, Zubair Abbasi, Maryam Khan, Zoe Richards, Waqqas Mir, Rafay Alam, Saad Rasool and Ali Ahsan.

NOTE: The statement is not the official version of LUMS and its Law and Policy Department and the views expressed by the signatories are purely in their personal capacity.

P.S. If you truly want to create safer spaces for students and a more fair and just system of trial – then teach your students to speak up against things like unwelcome physical contact from others. Don’t tell them and the world that they should learn to be complacent with an apology. And when processes and systems might rule against you or them then challenge those systems through the institutional means available thereby helping them improve. Don’t teach your students to shut up to protect the honor of your law school or faculty members. Don’t facilitate more crimes in the name of honor. God knows we already have enough of them. 

Unfortunately, the acquisition of Arabic does not enable people to fully understand or interpret religious texts. There are hundreds of years of jurisprudence and context that are required for decoding religious doctrine. Teaching children to read Arabic will not involve a simultaneous education in Islamic jurisprudence. It is, therefore, unlikely to serve the desired purpose. The introduction of a new language would require the hiring and training of thousands of new teachers. An investment of billions would be required to implement this counterterrorism strategy, the results of which — if ever apparent — would take years to manifest themselves in society.

Counterterrorism measures that offer better value for money should be prioritised. In a country where bomb disposal squads work without protective gear, surely there are more pressing priorities. Often, men with nothing but the shirts on their backs stand between the average citizen and terrorists gunning for them. Our citizens and law enforcers deserve better and sooner.

Let us put aside the efficacy and sanity of this as a counterterrorism strategy and focus on its implications for the education sector. According to the 2012 ASER survey, about 75 to 80 per cent of students in class three cannot read sentences in English or their local regional language meant for students studying in class two. We can barely teach children two languages. There is no merit in teaching an additional language poorly.

The introduction of Arabic is not a new idea. It has been implemented before and the results of prior implementation must be reviewed. The government needs to take a cold, hard look at the impact that learning Arabic has had on children previously. Both their linguistic proficiency and world view can and should be assessed. We cannot continue to let education policy be dictated by political expediency and need to shift focus on needs defined by evidence. If the government is serious about combating the extremist mindset, then teaching children to read another language will be of little use. Teaching them the critical thinking skills required to understand texts is far more essential. A review of existing textbooks riddled with hate and historical inaccuracies that breed ignorance is more urgent.

Our historic neglect of the education sector has us lagging behind regional and global peers in major education indicators, ranging from enrolment to student learning. If we continue to formulate education policy in a vacuum of both, evidence and sanity, it is unlikely that we will be able to produce a workforce that can compete globally. It is unlikely that we will produce citizens that are tolerant or compassionate and it is unlikely that we will extricate Pakistan from the shackles of terrorism that grip it and are suffocating it.

Published in The Express Tribune, January 12^th, 2014.

Well …. I’m not afraid to admit that I’m a feminist. And I think you shouldn’t be afraid to be one either. Words, after all, are powerful.

And so are pictures – so here is a pictoral tribute to all the brave feminists out there who have paved the way and made it easier for women like me and have served as trailblazers and inspirations to countless people across the globe.

Rhetoric was classically broken down into five canons: (a) invention, the process by which an orator researches and gathers material; (b) arrangement, the logical structure of an address; (c) style, the figures of speech and “way with words” the orator employs to deliver a point; (d) memory, methods for memorizing an address; and (e) delivery, the performative act of giving an address.

Even in the ancient world, rhetors were often criticized for flowery and obfuscating language. This is similar to the contemporary expression “mere rhetoric,” which we use to denote speech that is powerful but lacking in content. As then, so now, it soon become a rhetorical trick to deny having been trained in rhetoric, or to deny that one is intentionally structuring one’s words so as to be as persuasive as possible.

But it is important to remember that rhetoric, classically understood, includes everything from research to delivery. It is an all-encompassing discipline, opening the mind to the power of words. And in a world where everyone from CEOs to Pop Stars use words to relate to vast audiences, rhetoric—whether to persuade or to understand persuasion—is more important than ever.

Source: http://paideia21.com/rhetoric/

The rules of electoral finance lie at the very heart of the democratic process. These regulations are put in place to ensure that elections, by virtue of their cost, do not become the exclusive domain of the filthy rich. Our criminal neglect of electoral finance is one of the reasons for the kind of democracy we live in. Requiring the Election Commission to implement this Supreme Court verdict will require capacity that the Election Commission does not possess. But this is where friends of democracy should be directing their energies if we really want to change the quality and calibre of those in power.

The lacklustre leadership in control of the country consists of those people who have the money and clout to contest and win elections, which in Pakistan are neither won nor contested on the basis of competence or the policy views held by the candidates. Instead, contested on the basis of power and money, those that have neither, stand spectacularly slim chances of ever winning an election. So, we can automatically write-off most of the upstanding members of society. Therefore, until we change (or implement) the rules of financing the electoral game, we are likely to end up with the corrupt but powerful in the national driving seat.

What could be sadder than a country that has to resort to thinking of who is the least corrupt, least dishonest or least incompetent when trying to decide who should hold one of the highest offices in the land? Pakistan took a loud collective groan the day Raja Pervaiz Ashraf was elected prime minister. He is the man most Pakistanis associate with the energy crisis, unfulfilled promises and unlawful financial gain at the expense of millions of people who live their lives between loadshedding cycles. Even amongst the most ardent supporters of democracy, there is a deep sense of discomfort with the candidate that the democratic process has put on the prime ministerial throne.

As a result, some are yearning for the boots and others are calling for early elections. But we have tried the boots before and they don’t fit this country well. We could have new elections but they are likely to put more ‘Raja Rentals’ in parliament. The problem lies not with just this man who is now prime minister, but the large majority of those who (dis)grace the halls of parliament. Alternatives to Ashraf included a health minister accused of involvement in a narcotics scam, a former defence minister on whose watch we saw the largest number of plane crashes in the history of Pakistan but never once a public apology and a foreign minister who can afford to buy extremely expensive handbags but whose husband reportedly cannot afford to pay electricity bills.

Hardly an inspirational cabal of leaders. Unfortunately, these and more like them are the only options we have. So those of us who do not suffer from amnesia and believe that democracy is the only sustainable solution for Pakistan should spend less time complaining about ‘unrealistic’ electoral laws and put more effort towards educating citizens about having them implemented. Changing the rules of the money game in elections can be a powerful tool for changing the face of democratic politics in Pakistan.

Published in The Express Tribune, July 3^rd, 2012.