What is Asif Ali Zardari and the PPP up to in relation to the issue of the restoration of the judges is the million dollar question? There are various answers given by the anti-PPP and pro-restoration groups. Some argue that Asif Ali Zardari, Pervez Musharraf and the Americans are part of a deal which involves the retention of Pervez Musharraf and as a consequence, the non-restoration of the deposed judges. Others argue that, irrespective of what happens to Musharraf in the future, Zardari doesn't want to restore the judges at all because he thinks that they will strike down the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) 2007, and deny him the benefits of his alleged 'corrupt' practices. The common element in both these answers is that it reduces this political problem to the personality of Asif Zardari and his personal problems.

Without denying the relevance of the leadership of Asif Ali Zardari in understanding this political problem, I propose to argue in this article that the issue of the restoration of the judges vis-a-vis the PPP and Asif Zardari is a political, and not a personal, problem, and the actions of Asif Zardari and the PPP in relation to this issue needs to be understood within the context of the PPP as a ruling political party and the post Feb 18, 2008, emergent political process, and not in terms of the personality, personal views and self-interest of Zardari.

Musharraf constructed a post-Nov 3, 2007, 'legal' framework whose purpose was to legally secure his position as a constitutional president. First, by installing his own superior judiciary. Second, the Supreme Court under the PCO, headed by the Chief Justice, Abdul Hameed Dogar, under PCO, in the 'Tika Iqbal Muhammad Khan case' validated his post-Nov 2, 2007, actions and orders. Third, through the Constitution (Amendment and Second Amendment) Orders, 2007, constitutional amendments were 'inserted' in the constitution to secure his presidency [Article 44 was amended], to make it practically impossible to restore the non-functional judges Article 270C was amended and to protect and indemnify his post-Nov 2, 2007, actions and orders a new Article 270AAA was inserted.

The political strategy of Musharraf was clear. He knew that a new legal game was about to begin in which the constitution, judgments of the superior courts and the superior courts will be key strategic tools. Therefore, like any good dictator, his political strategy was to, in advance, manipulate and to rig all three of these strategic tools. But he also knew that a new political player i.e. the elected representatives of the people, are entering this new legal game. Therefore, as an incentive and gift to his alleged new political partners i.e. PPP, the NRO was also given protection through his aforementioned three strategic tools. The Supreme Court under PCO in the 'Tika Iqbal Muhammad Khan Case' upheld the enforceability of, and his constitution amendment [new Article 270AAA] protected, NRO. It looked like a marriage made in heaven.

But then came the romantic love affair of the Murree-Bhurban declaration of March 9, 2008. As examined in detail in one of my earlier articles, the Murree-Bhurban declaration recognised that the restoration of the judges was a political, and not a legal, problem.

There were four foundations of the Murree-Bhurban declaration. First, it accepted that the deposed judges [and not the judiciary] will be restored to their Nov 2, 2007, position. In other words, it was silent about the PCO judiciary. Second, it recognised that there were no legal or constitutional obstacles to the restoration of these judges because it refused to recognise the legality of the above-mentioned constitutional amendments which included the constitutional protection of the NRO, also made by Musharraf, the legality of the judgment in the 'Tika Iqbal Muhammad Khan Case' and the PCO judiciary as the sole judiciary.

In short, the PPP refused to recognise the legality of the post-Nov 2, 2007, actions and orders of Musharraf.

Third, a political decision was made to take on a political conflict with Musharraf. Fourth, in terms of tactics, the methodology of a parliamentary resolution and the time frame of 30 days was to be adopted. To further shatter the broken heart of Musharraf, on the first day of the session of National Assembly, one of the senior members of the PPP made a statement on the floor of the house that they don't recognise the post-Nov 2, 2007, constitutional amendments made by Musharraf (which included the NRO).

Did the Murree-Bhurban declaration, and subsequent events, expose the dangers of arranged marriages or did it expose the PPP as a treacherous lover? Or did it simply emphasise the fact that an understanding of the politics of the PPP as a political party could not be reduced simply to the NRO, 2007.

But the judges were not restored through a parliamentary resolution within 30 or even 60 days. Did this signify the end of the romantic love affair of the Murree-Bhurban declaration and the revival of the alleged arranged marriage with Pervez Musharraf? Sadly, politics, like life, is hardly a boring and repetitive affair. Therefore, another bomb shell in the form of the Constitution (Eighteenth Amendment) Bill, 2008 was dropped by the PPP.

In relation to Musharraf, it contains the mother of all rejected marriage proposals, as it refuses to recognise the legality of the post-Nov 2, 2007 actions and orders. This is because the Constitutional Amendment Bill, 2008 refuses to recognise the post-Nov 3, 2007, constitutional amendments made by Musharraf, which amendments included a new Article 270AAA that gave blanket protection, immunity and indemnity to the post-Nov 2, 2007, actions and orders.

But wasn't PPP inflicting a mortal injury to itself because the same new Article 270AAA also provided constitutional protection to the NRO, 2007? Were these the actions of an immature political party? Or did it simply again emphasise the fact that an understanding of the politics of the PPP as a political party could not be simply reduced to the NRO, 2007.

The Constitutional Amendment Bill does, of course, have its own proposed new Article 270AAA which doesn't give protection to the PCO and the Proclamation of Emergency, 2007 but tries to give protection to the NRO, 2007. But that is only, if and when, this bill is passed by the parliament.

Therefore, the Eighteenth Amendment Bill does imply a continuity with the romantic love affair of the Murree-Bhurban Declaration because it refuses to recognise the legality of the post-Nov 2, 2007 actions and orders of Musharraf. It affirms that the decision to take on a political conflict with Musharraf is intact and implies a declaration of war without initiating an imminent political conflict.

This is the first time in Pakistan's constitutional history that a civilian government has refused to recognise the constitutional amendments made by a dictator.

In relation to the issue of the judiciary and the restoration of the non-functional judges, the PPP's bill contains a plethora of constitutional amendments. The constitutional amendments propose to restore the non-functional judges to the Nov 2, 2007 position and seniority in the proposed new Article 270CC.

But this restoration of the judges is now conditional on the following elements. First, it implicitly recognises the legality of the current PCO judges and as a consequence, proposes to control the non-functional judges through the greater numbers of the status quo-oriented judges under the PCO.

Second, it proposes an intrusive executive presence in the hiring of the superior judiciary [proposed new Articles 177A and 193A] and monopolistic executive control of the firing of the superior judiciary [proposed new Article 209].

Third, it creates a limited, ineffective and mere mouth piece, fundamental rights jurisdiction of the Supreme Court [proposed amendment in Article 184(3)].

Fourth, the present and future chief justices of the superior courts are proposed to be controlled through restricted tenures [proposed Articles 179 and 195].

Therefore, the Eighteenth Amendment Bill does imply a continuity with the romantic love affair of the Murree-Bhurban Declaration because it proposes to restore the non-functional judges to the Nov 2, 2007, position and seniority but this romantic love affair now is conditional and a one-sided love affair.

One doesn't need to study constitutional law or judicial history to understand the implications of the aforementioned amendments. The PPP wants to constitutionally create an oxymoron superior judiciary i.e. a subordinate superior judiciary or a judiciary independent of everyone else except the executive. Zardari and PPP's claim that they don't want power but rather want to change systems of power is proved correct by this Eighteenth Amendment Bill because the aforementioned amendment does want to change the structure of an independent judiciary, as envisaged under the original 1973 constitution, to a dependent judiciary.

Why has the romantic love affair of the Murree-Bhurban Declaration converted into such a conditional love affair or a proposed one-sided pre-nuptial agreement? Is the PPP simply acting 'evil' when it comes to the judiciary?

Maybe, a rational political explanation of the PPP to the Eighteenth Amendment is as follows. The bill is primarily based on the PPP's reading of Pakistani judicial history. In the PPP's mutilated and selective judicial memory, the judiciary, at best, is a useless bourgeois and right wing institution, and, at worst, the judiciary is an institution through which politicians are subdued and harassed and the political and democratic process is disrupted and destroyed. In this collective unconscious of the PPP, judicial dissent on March 9, 2007, and on Nov 3, 2007, are seen merely as tactical actions and this judicial dissent does not imply a strategic change in this allegedly anti-democratic institution.

Therefore, no independent judiciary can be destroyed by the Eighteenth Amendment Bill because their allegedly never was, nor is, an independent judiciary. Secondly, after the Murree-Bhurban Declaration, a new relationship has intervened in the life of the PPP i.e. the reality of power politics between institutions and the problem of governance. The PPP as a ruling political party recognises the potential constitutional structural conflict between a consolidating executive and legislature and an emerging independent judiciary (remember the conflicts between Benazir Bhutto and Sajjad Ali Shah and between Nawaz Sharif and Sajjad Ali Shah).

Therefore, why not just destroy this independent power institution i.e. judiciary, and consequently, avoid any structural conflicts. Additionally, the restoration of the deposed judges will also give rise to the imminent constitutional structural conflict with Musharraf and, maybe, also with the PCO judges, the political fallout of which may allegedly include the dismantling of the entire democratic system. Supposedly, restoration of the judges through a constitutional amendment will prevent both a conflict with Musharraf and the PCO judges because a constitutional amendment can neither be challenged by Musharraf nor by the Supreme Court.

How should one judge the above mentioned political explanation? Should it be dismissed as a bad horror novel or should it be seen as a serious political explanation?

Regardless of the moral and constitutional worth of the PPP's proposed bill, I offer only the following political observations. First, after March 9, 2007, and November 3, 2007, the genie and 'disease' of the idea of an independent judiciary which has inflicted and infested the historicity and mindset of the judges, lawyers and the common man, cannot be reversed. The 'disease' of independence is here to stay. Therefore, the proposed bill is an attempt to reverse history. Historical events and realities need to be accepted (even if undesirable) and not fought against.

Second no constitutional modern state has been able to avoid structural constitutional conflicts with the judiciary because they arise out of inbuilt structural constitutional contradictions. The judicial history of modern states tell us that constitutional conflicts with the judiciary can only be managed until these conflicts are resolved historically by developing consistent constitutional relationships between the various organs of the state. The PPP's proposed bill cannot bypass history.

Third, the PPP does not have a two thirds majority needed to pass these amendments. Opposition members of parliament are unlikely to support amendments which will help the executive control the judiciary because they recognise the importance of independent judicial power against a repressive Pakistani state.

Fourth, a constitutional state with fundamental rights, without an independent judiciary to enforce those fundamental rights, is like having a democracy without political parties. Why not just get rid of the pretence that we are a constitutional state with fundamental rights.

Fifth, will the PPP want such an executive-dominated dependent judiciary when it is in opposition and appealing for either bail in a criminal case or contesting a false criminal charge?

Sixth, isn't an imminent structural conflict with Pervez Musharraf unavoidable because he is like an irritant illegal trespasser always looking to dislodge the rightful repository of public power. Why not fight this imminent political conflict with a recently tested anti-Musharraf judiciary on your side?.

Seventh, if there is an inevitable and unavoidable choice between a political conflict with Nawaz Sharif because of the non-restoration of the deposed judges and between a political conflict with Pervez Musharraf or the PCO judges, shouldn't the PPP avoid the former, rather the latter, conflict. Surely, the guarantee to any kind of political stability in Pakistan is in the continuation of this contradictory and incompatible coalition between the PPP and PML (N).

Regardless of the above intellectual diatribe, Farooq Naek, the intellectual brain behind these amendments, our legal czar and an experienced parliamentarian, must know that the biggest Constitutional Amendment Act passed in the history of our Pakistani parliament was the Constitution (Eighth Amendment) Act, 1985, which contained only 19 amendments. The biggest Amendment Act passed by Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was the Constitution (Fifth Amendment) Act, 1976, which contained only 18 amendments (By the way, Bhutto had a two thirds majority in parliament).

The Constitution (Eighteenth Amendment) Bill, 2008, contains 79 amendments. Is Mr Naek trying to create history? May be, world constitutional history?. Surely, if he realistically wanted to pass these amendments, a more intelligent strategy would have been to have many constitutional bills with fewer amendments to be passed in a piecemeal manner. For example, like the Constitution (Thirteenth Amendment) Act, 1997, passed by the Nawaz Sharif government, contained only four amendments, which reversed and corrected the political and power imbalances between the prime minister and president. But without having access to, or insight into, the political decision making of the PPP, one can only engage in some kind of analytical speculation.

The Constitution (Eighteen Amendment) Bill, 2008, really looks like a beautiful shell. Beautiful from the outside but empty inside. At worst, it is a fantasy and, at best, a maximalist position on which the PPP is willing to compromise e.g. it may be willing to go back to the tactical solution of the good old romantic days of the Murree-Bhurban declaration (especially now after the passage of the Finance Bill, 2008, which accepts the physical presence of the Supreme Court judges under the PCO) and then later on also try to pass, bits and pieces, of the judicially-oriented amendments of the Constitution (Eighteen Amendment) Bill, 2008.

Or may be, it is merely a political strategy to delay a solution to these problems so that the PPP can consolidate its power before taking on these difficult political problems. Sadly, the issue of the restoration of the judges is a major cause of persistent instability in Pakistan and in the fractured and transitional democratic politics of Pakistan, political instability and power consolidation are dangerously incompatible notions.

The romantic journey from Murree to the constitutional package has shown us that irrespective of the fights within our democratic constitutional family (i.e. between the PPP and PML(N) and the judiciary), there is at least consensus among all its members about the source of our common political and constitutional woes -- the system of military dictatorship in Pakistan.

Before they became occupied with video games, ipods and mobile messaging, children in our schools used to spend time in activities of other kinds. They played different type of games, often to test one's physical power and psychological strength. One favourite pastime in the primary schools was the eye contest. Two children sat gazing at each other, examining and exhausting the other's level of endurance. In this act of staring (probably an early training for males in our society!) the one who dropped his eyelid first lost the competition as well as respect among his friends.

The play of eye is seen again at an exhibition inaugurated on June 19, 2008 at Nairang Art Gallery, Lahore. Titled 'Eye to Eye' the show comprises 23 works by ten artists, with their new canvases and old paintings collected especially for this exhibition.

One usually witnesses the works of well established painters in group exhibitions, but 'Eye to Eye' is not just about showcasing certain artists. Conceived on the theme of Chinese whisper, an artist was asked to select paintings of another artist, who in turn picked the works of the third painter, and so on thus a chain of works, all selected by artists, is now installed in the group show.

A visitor is not only aware of the creative outputs of an artist, but is conscious of the discerning eye of another artist. Thus one work, besides reflecting the maker's ideas, imagery and vision, also presents the (point of) view of his contemporaries. The artist's decision of picking another person's work serves as a mirror to his personality and taste, with an attempt to look at the present art scenario in a different -- slightly creative -- manner.

The works by Ahmed Khan, Salima Hashmi, Ijaz ul Hassan, Iqbal Geoffrey, Jamal Shah, Anwar Saeed, Afshar Malik, Rahat Naveed Masud, and Nayyar Ali Dada along with Asad Faruqi are on display. Although these pieces, collected by their contemporaries, signify each artist's unique way of formal solutions as well as his conceptual concerns, one comes across a number of similarities and overlapping of imagery, technique and styles.

For instance, the figure of a man committing suicide by pointing a gun to his temples, seen in Anwar Saeed's painting, is repeated in the work of Asad Faruqi. Similarly the fascination with surface treatment and textures is witnessed both in the mixed medias of Ahmed Khan and Afshar Malik, though the former uses it to create his calligraphic text while the latter constructs a narrative with references to a man in an alien/urban situation.

Likewise, the political content is evident in the canvases of Jamal Shah and Anwar Saeed, whereas both Ijaz ul Hassan and Salima Hashmi employ the imagery of sprouting petals and growing leaves as symbols of hope and resistance in difficult times. A situation that is also suggested in the paintings of Rahat Naveed Masud, with her recurring imagery of citrus and the stained lids of fruit crates. Top of the wooden box is coloured in such a scheme that red patch resembles the splash of blood.

In that group, Iqbal Geoffrey too has displayed his collages, alluding to political, social and cultural conditions of our surroundings. In harmony with his peculiar style, Geoffrey deconstructs his original sources (newspaper, note pads, stamps etc) to fabricate an uncanny pictorial vocabulary. Despite its shocking content and challenging aesthetics, the work of Geoffrey, much like Hashmi, Hassan and Shah, denotes the presence of an artist, who is sensitive to his situation and reflects upon it with his artistic genius.

However the matter of common pictorial strategies and shared ideas is not a problematic issue. It is a sign of our artists as a community. Even though they don't like each other and despite their personal feuds, petty jealousies and professional quarrels, the exhibition affirmed a reality: of our artists being a likeminded group. Probably the reason why they are so much connected with each other -- through mutual love and hate -- is their alienation from society. As it is often observed that whatever an artist creates something it is not readily accepted or appreciated by the public. An artist is never regarded as a useful, intelligent person or productive part of the society.

Compared to other professionals, normally this sort of response from the public compels the artists to react in two ways. Either they become aloof and cut themselves from issues that are relevant to the masses, or they try to develop an understanding and seek to associate with people through their creative outputs. However their efforts, by and large, are self-satisfying endeavours.

Alternatively, if an artist is aware of his social responsibility as a commentator or critic of culture, the mere fact that an artist produces work in a certain time and place is important enough. In both cases, as a politically-conscious being or a self-indulgent individual, the creative output (if it is of some merit) will be remembered and regarded as the most important narrative of its age and region.

In that sense, the exhibition at Nairang offers a multiplicity of approaches. Diversity is found not only in their execution of work but in the way artists have selected each other's work. The concept behind this exhibition may appear new in our context, but artists have engaged in this kind of interaction. During the last century, Pablo Picasso and Henri Matisse used to exchange their paintings on a regular basis. Whenever an artist made new works, he invited the other who hand-picked the best piece. This practice continued, till Picasso noticed that Matisse was not showing him all of his work, and hid his better works. So in his next visit, Picasso chose one of the worst canvases Matisse ever did. Matisse was curious about his colleague's decision and asked the reason. Picasso told him that he selected this canvas, so that he can show everyone in Paris what sort of work Matisse was producing. Sensing the irony, Matisse brought out all his work for Picasso.

Seeing the works at Nairang, one feels that none of our artists behave like Matisse, nor respond as Picasso!

In the last few years a new trend has emerged of dedicating days to various activities, art forms and even human relationships. The world now celebrates or observes such diverse things as environment, mothers and population by assigning a particular day of the year to them. The World Music Day is also celebrated on June 21, and if one is not mistaken, the first of October had already been announced by the United Nations as the International Music Day.

Rarity is the source of attraction, while abundance is reduction to the ordinary. As long as these days were few and far between, one remembered them and also felt the need to do something about them. Now that everyday is assigned to one thing or the other the significance has been cloyed and the edge blunted.

The World Music Day has become important not all of a sudden, but gradually as the media has picked it up as a day to be acknowledged and celebrated. Féte de la Musique (World Music Day) a music festival held on June 21, usually the summer solstice began in France and has since spread over a hundred countries or cities like Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Britain, Luxembourg, Germany, Switzerland Costa Rica, Israel, China, India, Lebanon, Malaysia, Morocco, Pakistan, Philippines, Romania, Colombia and Venezuela to name a few. New York celebrated its first festival in 2007 and recently Iraqi Kurdistan in Sulaymaniyah city in 2008.

The idea was first broached in 1976 by American musician, Joel Cohen, then employed by the national French radio station, France Musique. Cohen proposed an all-night music celebration at the summer solstice. The idea was taken up by French Music and Dance director, Maurice Fleuret in 1981, taken to the French Culture Minister Lang and the first festival took place in 1982.

Its purpose was and is to promote music in two ways. Amateur and professional musician are encouraged to perform in the streets. The slogan Faites de la musique (make music), a homophone for Féte de la Musique, is used to promote this goal. Many free concerts are organised, making all genres of music accessible to the public. Once sanctioned by the official Fete de la Musique organisation in Paris, all concerts are to be free to the public. It is not required that musicians play for free, though many do so.

Despite huge tolerance about the performance of music of features by the general public amateurs in public areas after usual hours, the noise restrictions apply, and can cause some establishments to be forbidden to open and broadcast music out of their doors without prior authorization.

In Pakistan the most appropriate day of the week for music or devoted to music is Thursday and on this quasi religious day, on most of the shrines throughout the country Mehfil e Sama is hosted. It may be in the form of qawwali, kafi or wai and it may or may not be accompanied by dhammal. It may be an instrument like the dhol or the eiktara but it is a veritable fact that that these shrines erupt into musical activity at least once a week if not more. And then on the occasion of the annual urs, this one night activity is extended over several evenings. At certain shrines, the musical activity on the occasion of the urs is held round the clock lasting a few days, usually three, with the climactic rounding of the urs on the third day. There is obviously no restriction on the sound levels; neither is any prior authorisation sought. Many of the shrines are now in congested areas but on the specific day or dates everything transforms in and around the shrine overflowing with people and amplified sound.

All this is free of cost. There is no entrance ticket; it is meant for the masses at large and if someone has the desire and the ability to pay then he is free to offer a wail, a sum of money which is as much a token of appreciation as a monetary reward. And this is not a one time payment but is inspired by the level and quality of performance. This tradition kills two birds with one stone ñ those who have the capacity to pay do so, while the rest just sit back and enjoy the music.

Nowadays specific concerts are held, some free while others for the purpose of raising funds for a cause. Some huge concerts have been held for the AIDS victims and suffering people of Africa and are broadcast and televised to many more who are not directly involved in the effort of the enterprise. This explosion of technology has made music very accessible and cheap. In the past one had to be an Emperor Akbar to afford a Tansen, but now the best music is available for a pittance and the larger audience ensures great return to the musician as well. The media has made that possible.

It also conditions music. The impact of Fusion was transmitted through two most significant developments in South Asia, the easy access to MTV and the exposure to the music of the Asians in England. In the last decade the easy access to MTV in our part of the world has changed music immensely. MTV had started transmission in the 1980s but due to expensive dishes and receivers the access was very limited. In the 1990s, the inexpensive equipment made MTV's accessible in every house, only a matter of personal choice, and that had a tremendous effect on popular taste in music.

The country does not erupt to the sound of music, free of cost, performed the whole night in public venues on June 21. Perhaps for that to happen we will have to curb or alter our traditional musical activity on the shrines every Thursday and on annual urs.

We recently visited this year's showing of the BP National Portrait Award, the annual portraiture competition whose entries are exhibited every summer in London's National Portrait Gallery. I have to say I was sorely disappointed by the works the judges had chosen as winners. The first prize went to a very large canvas depicting the head and shoulders of a woman. This was an interesting, photo-realistic painting, notable mainly for its photo-realistic details. There was nothing much else noteworthy about this portrait. It didn't tell a story, create a mood or contain any sort of emotional content at all.

Last year's young artist award was very similar: a large canvas close-up of a woman's face depicted in breathtaking photo-realistic detail. We ooohed and aahed about the minute detail then, but when I saw this year's winner, I felt that the judges had rather lost their way.

What constitutes a winning portrait? If it were just the photographic detail, then Pakistan's cinema billboard painters could be short-listed for the award. As could anybody who scanned a photo and created a pixelated diagram of where to put what colour. In other words, using photographs to create painting-by-numbers type uber realistic canvases does not necessarily constitute a winner.

This year the second and third prizes were slightly more interesting depictions as they were able to convey far more about mood and personality than the winner, but the BP Young Artist Award went to a quite unremarkable but, of course, photorealistic (!) painting of a blond woman.

What criteria are these judges applying, and why? I saw several works in this exhibition which were far more expressive and original than the winning entry and the only value I could see in the winner was its freakish photorealistic detail. Is this the true test of a good portrait? I obviously don't think so. For me emotional content is a must, as is some indication of originality in approach and vision. I don't think the judges have done a good job at all and I am certainly confused by this trend towards this flat photo-realism. Let's hope it proves short-lived. Of course you can't get the whole impact of the work by looking at the images on a computer but if you do want to get an idea of what I am talking about then do look at winning entries on the national portrait gallery website in the section about the portrait award. Hopefully you'll get an idea of what I'm ranting on about!

Incidentally, Karachi (urban jungle and city of my birth) is quite a presence in journalist/novelist/colleague Mohammed Hanif's recent piece in The Guardian. The article, which is titled 'Karachi Calling', talks about his decision to move back to that city after twelve years in London. He speaks of people's incredulity at why he should want to do this as well as of his own apprehensions regarding uprooting his own son who describes himself as a 'Londoni'.

Hanif speaks of 'a yearning for the sea breeze' of Karachi, and says 'Although I wasn't born in Karachi, I always call myself a Karachiite because that's where I found love and work and the sea.'

Another Karachiite, the writer Kamila Shamsie, has always found this metropolis as a major presence and influence in her work, while novelist Maniza Naqvi has depicted Karachi rather affectionately in her book A Matter of Detail. And I am quite looking forward to seeing how my school friend and journalist Fifi Haroon writes about Karachi in the novel that I think she must, inevitably, soon write.

Karachi really does get into your system space. .Although I was born there I never really lived in Karachi until I was fifteen. Initially I hated it: the chaos, the dust, the ugliness, but as time went by I came to appreciate the essential dynamism of the city. I briefly became a part of Karachi, and it has, forever, become a part of me.

Whenever I go back, I am always impressed by the resilience and energy of the city and its inhabitants, and always consoled by the fact that despite all the economic disparity and all the physical and mental hardships that its inhabitants face on a daily basis, you still come across so many people whose basic kindness has not been eroded despite all the blows that life in Karachi can deal.

Best Wishes