The words spoken in Parliament do not disappear when the microphones are switched off. They travel beyond the walls of the assembly, enter drawing rooms, reach the streets, and become part of the national conversation.
When Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi attributed the words “I spit on the state” to Maulana Fazlur Rehman during a Senate exchange, the reported remark triggered a debate that deserves more than political point-scoring It raises a fundamental question: How far can political expression go before it begins to insult the very country whose institutions and people give political leaders their identity, authority, and public standing?
Pakistan is not the property of any political party, government, institution, or individual. It is the mother-state of 260 million people — a country built through sacrifice, struggle, and the hopes of generations.
BāBā-Tāl was unusually quiet.
He looked towards the window of The Eyrie, his fingers tightening around his teacup.
“Bacha! If he spits upon the State, the motherland that gave him and all of us an identity, then…”
He stopped.
I turned towards him. OMG! His eyes! I had seen those deep, centuries-old eyes in sorrow, amusement, mischief, and wisdom, but never in such a state of anger.
For a few moments, he said nothing. Then, with an intensity that sent a chill through me, he continued:
“He will drown in an ocean of hatred, an ocean formed by the spit of 260 million Pakistanis. Bacha! Those who mistake the patience of this nation for weakness should remember: a nation’s collective anger is not a puddle to be brushed aside. It can become an ocean.”
He paused, took a deep breath, and whispered:
“Chin-chin… Let the bells of accountability ring. No one is above the state, and no one should be above its law.”
I looked at Foxy, parked below The Eyrie. The little mustard Volkswagen seemed to be waiting for the journey ahead, while the question in my mind refused to settle.
THE MOTHER-STATE IS NOT A POLITICAL PROPERTY
Pakistan came into being through an extraordinary political struggle and immense human sacrifice. Millions were uprooted, families were divided, lives were lost, and countless dreams were carried across a new border. The country was not created as a private inheritance for those who would later occupy its offices. It belongs to its people.
There is, however, a distinction that must never be blurred: the state is not the same as the government of the day. Governments change. Political parties rise and fall. Ministers come and go. Governments can be criticised, questioned, and held accountable. Indeed, a healthy democracy requires citizens and journalists to do precisely that.
But criticism of a government is not a licence to humiliate the country itself. One may disagree with a policy, challenge a decision, expose corruption, or demand the resignation of a ruler. These are legitimate democratic rights. Yet the motherland must not become a casualty of political anger.
The state is larger than its temporary custodians. It is the collective home of its citizens, their constitutional rights, their shared history, and their future.
THE POLITICS OF CONVENIENCE
Pakistan’s political history is full of contradictions. Parties that once opposed one another have later joined hands. Leaders who condemned a policy have sometimes defended a similar policy when circumstances or political interests changed. Yesterday’s adversary can become today’s ally, while yesterday’s ally may suddenly be declared an enemy.
Such changes are part of politics, but they also expose the weakness of a political culture in which principles are too often adjusted to suit convenience.
No political leader should be above scrutiny. No party should claim exclusive ownership of patriotism. And no individual should be allowed to turn the national interest into a shield against questions.
The same standard must apply to everyone. A politician’s words deserve examination; a government’s actions deserve examination; and the conduct of every institution must remain within the bounds of law and constitutional responsibility.
Accountability can not be selective. It can not be a weapon reserved for opponents and a privilege denied to friends.
THE 3 NOVEMBER DEVELOPMENT: THE ARGUMENT CONTINUES
The controversy did not end with the parliamentary exchange. In remarks reported on 3 November, Maulana Fazlur Rehman, addressing a social media convention in Peshawar, called for transparency in agreements involving Khyber Pakhtunkhwa’s minerals and natural resources.
He said his party welcomed foreign investment but would not accept the sale or depletion of the province’s resources in the name of investment. He demanded that any agreements with major powers be made public and argued that the concerns of citizens should be answered rather than dismissed through political allegations or character assassination.
These are questions that deserve serious public scrutiny. Pakistan’s natural wealth belongs to its people. Any agreement involving strategic resources must be transparent, lawful, and beneficial to the communities and the country. Foreign investment should bring opportunity, technology, and prosperity — not suspicion, secrecy, or a sense of dispossession.
The government, for its part, has presented its position on the security and administrative measures in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa as a response to the prevailing situation, rejecting the allegation that these steps are intended to take control of the province’s mineral resources.
The public should not be asked to choose between competing political narratives. It deserves evidence, constitutional clarity, and answers. If agreements exist, disclose them. If allegations are made, examine them. If public resources are at stake, protect them through transparent institutions and enforceable law.
That is how trust is built — not through slogans, accusations, or personal attacks.
THE LESSON OF UNITY
The Qur’an offers a timeless principle for a divided society:
“And hold firmly to the rope of Allah all together and do not become divided.”
(Surah Aal-e-Imran, 3:103)
The message is not merely spiritual; it is also a reminder of the strength that comes from unity, restraint, and a shared moral purpose.
The Holy Prophet Muhammad [Peace and blessings be upon him] taught:
“A Muslim is the one from whose tongue and hand the Muslims are safe.”
(Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith 10; Sahih Muslim, Hadith 40)
If our faith teaches us to protect others from the harm of our words and actions, how can we treat public discourse as a battlefield where humiliation is celebrated and hatred is deliberately cultivated?
Abraham Lincoln’s famous warning remains relevant:
“A house divided against itself can not stand.”
A nation may differ, yet share one sky,
Its roots must hold when tempests pass it by.
Political disagreement is not national disloyalty. But turning disagreement into permanent hostility weakens the very foundations on which a country stands.
THE OCEAN MUST NOT BECOME A MOB
The metaphor of an ocean of spit is an expression of anger, not a call for violence. Public outrage must never become harassment, intimidation, or mob justice. No citizen should take the law into their own hands, regardless of how offensive a political statement may appear.
The answer to irresponsible speech is responsible for public debate. The answer to alleged wrongdoing is lawful investigation. The answer to abuse of authority is constitutional accountability. The answer to political division is not revenge but a stronger democratic culture.
A nation can not be protected by silencing every critic. Nor can it survive when contempt for the country becomes a political performance.
Those who govern must answer for their decisions. Those who seek public office must answer for their words. And those who claim to speak for the people must remember that the people are not their personal audience, nor is the State their political possession.
The law must be equal for all — the powerful and the powerless, the ruler and the ruled, the government, and the opposition.
THE FINAL WORD
Pakistan belongs to its people. Its dignity can not be reduced to the fortunes of one party, one leader, or one government.
Maulana Fazlur Rehman must answer for the words attributed to him. The government must answer for its actions. Every political leader must understand that public office carries responsibility, not immunity.
The figure of 260 million in this article is an expression of the nation’s collective emotion, not a claim that every Pakistani thinks alike. Our people have different political loyalties, opinions, and expectations. What they share is a country whose dignity and future should matter to all.
BāBā-Tāl’s final whisper still echoes in my ears:
“Bacha! Love your country enough to question those who govern it and respect it enough never to make its humiliation your political slogan.”
Chin-chin! The ocean is waiting. Let accountability, not vengeance, decide who must answer.
■■■