Speak when spoken to

The Foreign Office forgets its place

The Imran Farooq murder saga spelled some high-drama the very instant the late leader was brutally killed on his way home in London. Since he was estranged from his party of late, it was but natural for people to try to put two and two together, even if it was without any tangible evidence. That drama has led to an apogee recently with the London Metropolitan Police raiding the London office of the Muttahida Qaumi Movement, curiously described as the “business address” of self-exiled leader of the MQM, Altaf Hussain.

This space, however, is not about that murder. Individuals and parties are innocent till proven guilty and the press should also follow the courts’ suit in that regard. No, this is about the curious statement issued by the Foreign Office in response to the raid. It said that the MQM was an important member of the ruling coalition and that it hoped that “misgivings” about it were removed. Also that it represented the secular forces in the country.

That is absolutely unacceptable. Not just for the MQM but for any political party. This is a matter pertaining to the party, not the government of Pakistan. Even if it were the ruling PPP, it is not the job of the nation’s diplomatic apparatus to play spin doctor to any private matter. The cherry on the top was the bit about secular forces. First, the secular forces of the country are widespread ideologically; the ANP, for instance, is perhaps even more secular than the MQM. Would the body bags in Karachi from both sides corroborate with the MQM “representing” the ANP? Furthermore, it was a strange defence; if secularism absolved people of crimes like murder, Adiala will be full of songs separating the church from the state.

Though this is about the Foreign Office, the lesson here should also be adopted by the rest of the civil service. The elected representatives of the people are mandated to call the shots and the bureaucrats should get over their colonial hang-ups. But nowhere does this mean that they are to play yes-men to all party or even private functions. The civil servants should know their job description and stay true to it. In the UK, where the incident took place, ministers and bureaucrats alike lose their jobs if the press gets wind of civil servants used for party work. How curious would the statement have seemed to them?