Nadeem Paracha – renowned columnist for the leading English language Pakistani newspaper, Dawn – discusses the entrenched conspiracy theory culture of the country. He describes how:

(a) most of what is taught to students in Pak schools as history and Islam is “half lies”;

(b) there has been a dramatic increase in conspiracy theories with onset of social, economic, religious, and political turmoil in Pak;

(c) an increasing number of youngsters are being misled by conspiracy theories as very few intellectuals are given an opportunity by media to debunk them; and

(d) it is critically important for Pakistanis and Muslims to use commonsense and patience to understand today’s complex issues. This interview was recorded in 2009.

For the past five or six months I’ve been reading fairly regularly the web pages of three Urdu newspapers from Pakistan: Jang, Nawa-i-Waqt and the Express. I glance at the headlines cursorily then immediately turn to the columnists. Most days, each of the three carries a minimum of six columnists. Some of them are big names; they frequently appear on TV shows, get regularly invited to the President’s residence, and travel with the Prime Minister on important trips. These gentlemen never let you forget all that. One or two even give details of the food served on such occasions—there is always plenty of food served, not just a cup of tea, when they visit with any dignitary.

Some of them repeatedly tell us how uniquely they know the “history” of everything—how things actually happened, be it in Pakistan of here and now or any country in the past. They also inform us that had their advice been properly understood or taken, the disaster that followed in many cases could have been avoided. None of the sages has ever made a serious error of judgment. And if one of them ever makes a rare acknowledgment of that nature, it is always as a charge of betrayal on the part of some other party.

Conspiracy theories naturally abound in these columns, with three dependable conspirators: America, India (i.e. Bharat in Urdu; never Hindustan), and Israel. The labels may change and become CIA, RAW, and Mossad, or Nasara (the Christians), Hunud (the Hindus), and Yahud (the Jews), but their axis of evil remains unchanged. The alliteration of the last two—hunud andyahud—makes them a favourite and indivisible pair; they generate an assertion that no one questions in Urdu in Pakistan.

In these columns one discovers that M. A. Jinnah and Muhammad Iqbal were never correctly understood by except the particular columnist. They also offer amazing bits of ‘history’—often with a grand flourish. You can be sure to face something remarkable soon if the paragraph begins with the words: “Tarikh gavaah hai” “History is My Witness.” Fairly often a column might appear to have been written, not to communicate some idea or information, but for the sheer joy of writing those pretty words that, for plenty of Urduwalas, make it the “sweetest” language in the world.

Urdu newspapers—or for that matter, the English language ones—do not seem to employ fact checkers or copy editors for their columnists; they seldom carry any correction except of the most minor kind. One, in fact, wonders if their editors read them. One can be quite certain that the English newspaper editors and columnists in Pakistan don’t read them, not even if these Urdu columns appear in a sister publication brought out by their own publisher. In my limited experience of reading the columns in the Daily Times and the News fairly regularly—and inDawn, infrequently—I have not come across any column in English that commented in any fashion on some Urdu column or columnist. But the Urdu columnists are certainly read by a huge number of people, who save them and treat them as gospel truth. Recently one of them published a call for people to send him their saved cuttings of his column so that he could put together a book; in no time he had more than enough.

I must now offer some illustrations. But first I must hasten to add that not all Urdu columnists in Pakistan write in that manner. Quite a few—Hameed Akhtar, Zaheda Hena, Munno Bhai, Tanwir Qaisar Shahid, Asghar Nadeem Sayyad, Abdullah Tariq Suhail, Kishwar Naheed, Rafeeq Dogar, to name my own favourites—consistently write with clarity, sober reasoning, and in a manner that is both eloquent and passionate. As for the others—the majority—meet a few below.

Hamid Mir writes a regular column in Jang; he writes with passion but is usually quite careful.  I was taken aback when I read his column on April 27. He gave it the title “Children, True of Heart.” In it he described a meeting he addressed where school children were present, and where one child stood up and told him something that he had not known before. The child pointed out, Mir wrote, that America was such a sworn enemy of Pakistan that when Pakistan was born in 1947, the United States refused to recognize it for two years. The U.S. did so, according to the child, because it expected Pakistan to collapse and disappear any day. Mr. Mir was so moved by the child’s fervour and knowledge about Pakistan that he decided to write a column and acknowledge his ignorance of the truth that even a child knew. (In fact the U.S.A. recognized Pakistan on August 15, 1947, and opened an embassy the same day; the first American ambassador arrived six months later.)

Dr. A Q Khan of Kahuta fame writes regularly in both Jang and its sister English journal, The News. In his Urdu column on April 29, Dr. Khan claimed that President Obama had no authority of his own, that he was in fact totally controlled by the white men who stood to his right and left in photographs. He then asserted, without naming his sources, that President Obama had once asked that the Ka’ba should be destroyed, for that would put an end to all the conflicts the world was faced with. When I checked the English version I found it contained no mention of the Ka’ba. On inquiry, an editor at The News informed me that it had been deleted because it was based on hearsay. Apparently, hearsay was all right so long it was in Urdu.

Safir Ahmad Siddiqui, not a regular columnist, wrote a piece in Jang on May 17, denouncing any possible attempt on the part of the government to allow transit facilities to India in its trade with Afghanistan. Mr. Siddiqui reminded the readers: “what the Indians did to the Pakistanis POWs after the war of 1971-2 was of such cruel nature that historians forgot what Hitler and Mussolini had done in their prison camps.” He then presented an analogy whose logic, not to mention factual accuracy, was mind-boggling. According to him Pakistan should learn something or other from Hitler and Poland. According to Mr. Siddiqui, Hitler wanted back his two lost seaports Alsace and Lorraine from Poland—no, I’m not making it up—and resorted to force only when Poland refused him even transit facilities.  Therefore, Mr. Siddiqui concluded, Pakistan should also refuse India any transit facility.

The difference between the Urdu and English sister papers nurtured by the same family of publishers also stood out in stark contrast with reference to the reporting on a fatwa issued by some convention of Sunni ‘Ulema on May 17. According to Jang, the learned men of God had declared that it was haraam to commit suicide bombings, or cut the throats of Muslims. According to The News, however, the Sunni scholars had “termed the suicide attacks and beheadings as haraam.” The sages most likely meant what was said in English, but the Urdu version carried its own slant recklessly and never made it clear that the fatwa covered the necks of Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

Abdul Qadir Hasan is a top-slot columnist in The Express—despite the name the paper is in Urdu. On May 17, he wrote:

“In 1948, 1965, and 1971, and now again in 2009 we are fighting a fourth war with India. In this war we fight not only India but also its two patrons, USA and Israel. This triad is bent on destroying us. And this war is much more dangerous than the first three wars. In those wars, armies faced and fought armies, but this time it is a clandestine war, in which one side consists of Bharat-trained and armed guerrillas, i.e. Taliban, and facing them on the other side stands the regular soldiers of Pakistan.”

This theme, common to so many columnists, was given its most perfervid interpretation five days later (May 22) by Dr. Ajmal Niazi, who is a top-slot columnist in Nawa-i-Waqt. He entitled his column: ”Pakistan will be the battlefield of the Third World War.” He made three powerful assertions—he did not use the word mubayyana (“alleged”) anywhere. (The word is rarely, if at all, used in Urdu columns.).

Seymour Hersh, Dr. Niazi claimed, had disclosed that Benazir Bhutto was killed at the orders of Vice President Dick Cheney, and by a death squad commanded by Gen. Stanley C Crystal. He further claimed that Z.A. Bhutto, Murtaza Bhutto, and Benazir Bhutto were all killed by the Americans. Finally, Dr. Niazi claimed that Benazir Bhutto had given an interview to Al-Jazira on Nov. 2, 2007, in which she had said that Osama bin Laden was already dead, and that he had been killed at the orders of Shaikh Umar Sa’id.  But the Americans ordered [whom?] to have the remark deleted, because if bin Laden were already dead they—the Americans—would have had no reason to do what they did in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Having thus established to his own and his readers’ satisfaction a chain of reasoning, Dr. Niazi concluded his column with a scary flourish.

“The Western and American media are in an uproar over Pakistan’s nuclear bombs, but they should also listen to me. I’m telling them that if the nuclear weapons of Pakistan were put in any danger the third world war will immediately start. Then both India and Israel will cease to exist. What will the United States do then? The battlefield of ‘World War III’ will be Pakistan.”

Then there are the wonderful “insider’s exclusives” about the great ones. Here is Mr. Majeed Nizami, the chief editor and owner of  Nawa-i-Waqt and The Nation, in a letter to his main rival Jang (May 23), explaining a remark he reportedly had made.

“The bomb-exploder prime minister Mian Nawaz Sharif had called a meeting of some 60 or 70 journalists and editors to seek their advice before deciding to have the nuclear tests.  Many people of I.A. Haqqani’s ilk opposed the idea, and tried to frighten him by warning of America’s wrath. He clearly seemed to waver. At that time I was indeed forced to speak to him firmly. ‘Miyan Sahib,’ I said to him, ‘explode the bomb otherwise the nation will explode you. We will explode you.’ And Almighty Allah gave him the ability to explode the bomb. But before that could happen President Clinton phoned him five times, offered millions in bribe, and [finally even] threatened him [personally].”

And here is a charming vignette from one of Mr. Mahmud Sham’s columns—I regret my failure to note the date; it was sometime in May—that contained excerpts from his book of interviews.

“Dr Fahmida Mirza has vacated her seat for me and taken another chair. Now I’m seated on the chair next to the Daughter of the East, the first Muslim woman Prime Minister in the Muslim World, the Life Chairperson of P.P.P., Honourable Benazir Bhutto. Also present are other senior journalists, TV anchorpersons, newspaper proprietors, and her party’s senior leaders.  She wants to know if she should take part in the elections… It’s a good thing that she is seeking advice from people who are outside her party. Most of us want her to take part in the elections. She is asking each person individually. The tea has come, together with Chaat. She herself enjoys Chaat. Her dupatta keeps slipping, but she never lets it fall. I’m seeing her after many years and so my feelings are intense.”

In this la-la land of column writing in Urdu in Pakistan three names stand out in my view: Irfan Siddiqui, Dr. Aamir Liaquat Husain, and Haroon-al-Rashid. All three are regular columnists forJang. The first two surpass everyone in finding ‘facts’ where facts may not exist; they also write with great verve in an Urdu that has all the flourishes and graces required in a ghazal. The third, Mr Haroon-al-Rashid, is in a class by himself. I cannot put into English his pyrotechnical Urdu and his riffs of free-association. He must be read in the original. But here is one sample each of Mr. Siddiqui’s and Dr. Husain’s insightful writings.

In a column in May—I apologize again for not noting the date—Dr Husain first defended himself against the charges of faking his doctorate degree, then wrote:

“Those who invoke the name of the Qaid-e-Azam should first show they have the samenafs [“lower self” in mystical thought]. He was educated in England, grew up surrounded by Western culture, and started his political life from the platform of a secular party. But when he became the leader of ‘those who were his own’ he never took removed his cap from his head or took off sherwani; he did not let his nafs rule over him for a moment; he did not use the broom of greed to sweep the yard of his desires (sic). He knew he was the leader of the Muslims, and so he always looked like them among them. He knew how to wear a suit much better than many who wear suits; he knew how to cross his legs and smoke cigars. He had seen such scenes many times in the durbar of the British, but he also understood that millions of people oppressed by the Hindus had whole-heartedly claimed him as their own. And so he gave all his wishes and desires the name of Pakistan, and never looked back to that Muhammad Ali who perhaps had some personal desires too.”

And here is Mr Irfan Siddiqui on a topic that was hot for a couple of days in May. He wrote in his column in Jang (May 23):

“President Zardari was in Washington. A schoolmistress named Hilary Clinton had him and the Clown of Kabul sit on her either side, and then lectured them. In every gathering, every meeting, and every function it was specially arranged that Hamid Karzai should be on the right hand [of the American dignitary] and President Zardari on the left. I do not recall any occasion in the past when an American Secretary of State conducted a meeting of two presidents in such a fashion.”

Finally, since I come from India, I must point out that Urdu newspapers in India are in no way better. Their columns and editorials carry similar feats of conspiratorial thinking and convoluted reasoning. And in rhetorical passion they can match any Pakistani columnist. I have written about them in the past, most recently in 2007 in a note concerning the treatment meted out to Taslima Nasreen at Hyderabad.

C. M. NAIM is Professor Emeritus of Urdu at the University of Chicago. Besides being an acclaimed columnist, he has written extensively on Urdu language and literature and has translated widely from Urdu fiction and poetry.

By Wasiq Ali
This article appeared in The News on August 20, 2009

Opinion polls are new to Pakistan but they have been around for decades in the West. Even then, they are seen for what they are – a snapshot in time of how people feel. Opinion polls are not a substitute for elections and no one in any developed democracy demands that the result of an election be reversed simply because of opinion polls. Unfortunately, some elements full of hatred against the current elected government and particularly President Asif Zardari, are trying to do just that based on recent opinion polls. It is important, therefore, to discuss polling and its relationship with democracy in Pakistan.

Approval ratings for British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, according to opinion polls, is down to around 18 percent. But there is no clamour for a minus-one formula in Britain. Everyone understands that Prime Minister Brown was elected for a specific term and unless the majority of his party’s members of parliament change their party leader he will continue to serve as prime minister until the next election.

Similarly, US President Barack Obama’s approval ratings have dipped since he swept into office in November 2008. Obama will probably use the polls to figure out how to improve communication with the American people. The polls will not, however, affect his position as president until the next presidential election in 2012.

In India, opinion polls before general elections early this year predicted a hung parliament. The election results, however, put in office a strong Congress-led government, proving the limitation of opinion polling.

Much is being made of the recent polls in Pakistan, which show negative ratings for President Asif Ali Zardari and the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP)-led government. Before we get swayed away by the poll numbers we should examine the problems with opinion polling in Pakistan as well.

Opinion polling was originally designed to represent the views of a population by choosing a sample and asking them a series of questions. The sample was to be selected in a way that it represented, to the extent possible, the entire population. This would help extrapolating generalities from the sample to the population at large. Thus, a good polling sample would account for the ratio of different ethnicities, professions, religious and sectarian affiliation and gender.

Pakistan’s polling organizations admit themselves that their samples do not reflect Pakistan’s diversity adequately but this admission usually comes in a separate section of their reports and is often overlooked by the media.

Furthermore, in the West polling organisations openly acknowledge any political affiliation or sponsorship. We hear of Democratic Party pollster Mark Penn and Republican pollster Frank Luntz. The affiliation does not mean the polling data is inaccurate but it warns analysts against any possible tilt in the manner of framing of questions.

Pakistan’s oldest polling organization, Gallup Pakistan, was founded by Dr Ijaz Gilani, a competent man, whose polling reports do not frankly acknowledge his association with the Jamaat-e-Islami. The very fact that the primary field force for Gallup’s polling is recruited from Jamaat-e-Islami’s cadres could affect the outcome of the poll in the view of some. This is not in any way meant to cast aspersion on Gallup’s polling in Pakistan, just to suggest the need for full disclosure. Polls can only be accurate where the framing of the questions has been less than subjective and the public has a right to know the subjectivities of those conducting any poll.

A common mistake in Pakistani polls, which makes them less accurate, relates to provincial and urban-rural weight. For example, the latest Pew Poll acknowledges that its sample of 1,254 adults was “disproportionately urban.” The Pew Poll sample was 55% urban even though Pakistan is only 33% urban. The reason for the disproportionately urban sampling was stated to be the “greater heterogeneity of the urban population.”

In its methodology section, the Pew poll states, “In addition to sampling error one should bear in mind that questions wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce errors or bias into the findings of opinion polls.”

The Gallup-Al Jazeera poll also had given Punjab 60% in the polling sample whereas Punjab only accounts for 52% of Pakistan’s population.

Such anomalies fail to recognize the fundamental realities of Pakistan. First, Nawaz Sharif and Pakistan Muslim League-N are primarily based in urban Punjab. Any poll giving more weight to urban Punjab would unduly favour Nawaz Sharif and his party. Secondly, urban Pakistan is more affected by the themes in the media. Since the Pakistani media has been intrinsically hostile to President Zardari that hostility is reflected in urban opinions.

Thirdly, polling is difficult in areas such as the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA). For example, the limited polling done in FATA affirms that people there support drone attacks because they get rid of people who are making their lives miserable.

But in the rest of the country, especially the urban areas, there is greater hostility to drone attacks largely because of the media drumming up anti-Americanism.

A detailed study of the Pew Poll methodology also indicates that there is no accounting for proportions of well-to-do versus poor and Muslims versus non-Muslim minorities. All these factors mean that just as the Gallup and other polls before the February 2008 elections failed to take into account rural and minority opinions they are doing the same even now.

Most polls before the 2008 elections predicted fewer seats for the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) and a lot more for the two Pakistan Muslim League factions. But we all know that the election result was different. So if President Zardari is still smiling after unfavorable opinion poll results he probably has good reason. Public opinion can change and if Pakistan can stay on the democratic course, which it should, then much can happen to alter public opinion between now and the next election due in February 2013. It is election results and not opinion polls that matter, however much hysterical anchors and columnists might drum up the opinion poll surveys.

Wasiq Ali is a US-based financial consultant who blogs at wasiqali.wordpress.com

The Sindh Chief Minister, Syed Qaim Ali Shah, declared at the Independence Day flag-hoisting ceremony at the Mazar of Quaid-e-Azam on Friday that ‘the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) had never before accepted the minus-one formula, nor will it accept it today’. He said, ‘PPP’s democratic government has not entered the corridors of power from the back door as it enjoys a public mandate. Conspiracies are being hatched against democracy and the PPP’.

Mr Shah was referring to a media campaign against the person and party of Mr Asif Zardari. Though the campaigners say they are not gunning for President Zardari, the PPP rank and file certainly see a ‘get Zardari’ front by a certain section of the print and electronic media that has been the greatest supporter of the campaign for the restoration of the judges and at odds with Mr Zardari and the PPP from the outset.

Unfortunately, after a protesting response from a senior PPP member at the centre, the campaign by this particular media group has become a confrontation. The plaint of ‘media trial’ has been accepted as a challenge and more ‘revelations’ have been promised in what might become a demonstration of the power of the media in the country. Is the campaign fair?

Theoretically speaking, in so far as the job of the media is to hold the government of the day to account and scrutinise its actions in the light of the law, no critical revelation is out of bound. At worst, the government or a member of the party can take the concerned media source to court and demand proof, failing which it can claim compensation. But this is Pakistan. The courts are flushed with pro-media feelings, especially for a media group that has supported the judges to the hilt. So for the government to get justice against this mediain Pakistan right now is asking for the moon. At any rate, such recourse would attract even more censure at home and abroad and prove counter-productive for the government. So it can only lie back and enjoy it.

On the other hand, aiming or seeming to aim at getting rid of President Zardari through such a campaign, which often verges on being discriminatory-defamatory, is not kosher at all. This is what the PPP is partly complaining about when it talks of the ‘minus-one formula’. For instance, you can describe the plight of the PIA as a ‘bankrupt organization’‘ like many others in the public sector ’ but it may be difficult to prove corruption against the sitting government by only describing a bankruptcy which is nothing new and implicates several governments in the past.

If truth be told, the campaign against Mr Zardari has often become unsavoury. One can only approximate the innuendos carried in certain pointed TV programmes and columns. For instance a column on August 12, 2009 said, ‘After getting out of jail through an understanding with Musharraf, Zardari thought he could lead the PPP, but Benazir did not allow that. Even her children were bred away from the shadow of his character’. The same column also ‘informs’ us that ‘when Zardari was not successful in playing a prominent role in the party during Benazir’s life, he went off to Dubai where he caught a strange malady of the heart which could only be removed by being in his flat in New York among his pretty ones. Only his medical adviser ‘recently removed as adviser to the government’ can tell what his heart was suffering from’. This is hitting below the belt and not journalism.

Everyone has disavowed the old reflex of trying to get rid of the government mid-tenure. But if you look at the political landscape of Pakistan you will clearly see that there is a media campaign to do just that to the PPP government. Criticism of the government is a duty that a free media must perform, even of problems like the PIA, of load-shedding and rental units, and the wheat and sugar crises, that have a history in the past. But defaming the president of the country so blithely is not a good precedent to set, especially by comparing him to a president recently deposed in Latin America for corruption.

The PPP has won the 2008 election fair and square. It rejects the ‘minus-one formula’ and has the right to rule till the end of its tenure. Its opponents can get rid of it by defeating it in the next elections. The media has no business launching any campaign for regime change.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009%5C08%5C16%5Cstory_16-8-2009_pg3_1

Not surprisingly life in the Land of the Pure is a lot more muddled!

Many of the top journalists have been bought out by the State, using the office of the Press Information Department which is an arm of the Ministry of “Information”.

Many of their lesser known colleagues get away with low level blackmailing.

We have highlighted recently the land deals for Nazir Naji, Rauf Klasra and Mohammad Malick and the dangerous ideological affiliations (pro-Taliban) of superstars like Kamran Khan, Hamid Mir and Ansar Abbasiwho have since the Ch Iftikhar upheaval become the darlings of the couch-potato public through their TV appearances.

And there is the lovely Amir Liaquat who wows the ladies with his Alim Online, while everyone knows about him hoodwinking the public about his fake degrees.  The ignorance spread by such religious programs anchored by crooks becomes difficult to counter by the saner elements in society.

What common between these guys?

They all belong to the Jang group which is led by Mir Shakeel ur Rahman and Bros.

The Jang group is faithfully supported by the likes of Shaheen Sehbai and Imran Aslam and other editors who pretty much keep mum while the Jang group rolls in the millions from advertising revenue.

It is therefore important that those interested in fair reporting in Pakistan carefully consider the following survey report.  Note the names of Geo and Jang:

The National Corruption Perception Survey 2009 (NCPS 2009) indicates that the overall Corruption in 2002 has increased from Rs 45 Billion to Rs 195 Billion in 2009.

To the question “In your opinion has media played a positive role in combating corruption, 77% said yes.

Respondents ranking of four most viewed TV Channel are Geo, ARY, Express and Aaj.

Four News paper in readership ranking are Jang, Nawae Waqat, Dawn and Mashriq.

WE WISH TO SET A CHALLENGE FOR JOURNALISTS AND MANAGEMENT OF ARY, EXPRESS AND AAJ AS WELL AS NAWAE WAKT, DAWN AND MASHRIQ TO DO INVESTIGATIVE STORIES ABOUT THE DARK SHEEP IN THEIR PROFESSION.

IT IS TOO EASY TO THROW DIRT ON OTHERS; ONLY WHEN JOURNALISTS CAN INVESTIGATE THEIR PEERS WILL THEY RESTORE THEIR TRUST WITH THE PUBLIC.

OUR HOPES FOCUS ON THE YOUNGER UNTAINTED LOT OF YOUNG REPORTERS AND JOURNALISTS TO EXPOSE THE ROT THROUGH BLOGS AND LISTS.

BECAUSE IT IS NEAR-IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE REGULAR MEDIA CHANNELS TO TAKE THIS UP.

WE ALSO APPEAL TO THE ETHICS COMMITTEE (OR EQUIVALENT) OF THE NATIONAL JOURNALISTS’ UNION TO PROBE THIS MATTER AND PUNISH THOSE WHO ARE GUILTY AND TO LAY DOWN GUIDELINES TO REDUCE THE CHANCES OF CORRUPTION IN THEIR MIDST.

If you agree with the above, please forward this message to your friends so that we jointly push for clean, trustworthy journalism in Pakistan.

Syed Inam Alavi, Ph.D.
Columbia Journalism School, NYC,
(For Yellow Journalism Watch)

By JS

Ambassador Husain Haqqani was recently accused of being a tax defaulter despite having diplomatic entitlement that grants him exemption from local taxes. The local authorities mistakenly sent him a notice which was quickly intercepted by the press, following which the ambassador was classified as a violator through a deprecating headline. Before the authorities could clarify the misunderstanding, the attention grabbing story had generated enough ripples to smear his image. Rumors of tax evasion coupled with the recital of his property being auctioned, created a sensational story; a baseless narrative far fetched from facts.

The media today is pervaded by misinformation. Veterans of this industry continue to set the agenda for reporting misconstrued facts. Public discourse is often shaped by personal biases. There is a scarcity of credible material from reliable reporters. Stories in general are aimed at reinforcing the perception that Pakistan is full of thugs. Those who have escaped the nefarious shackles of criticism through clear dealings are also projected as villains with skeletons in their closet. To some it might be comical, whereas most find it tragic.

Today’s generation has seen the proliferation of a worldwide media culture. News correspondents are actively engaged in collecting and disseminating information for their readership. But misusing information for incriminating an individual of distinction without investigating the facts is not only unfortunate but unacceptable in letter and spirit.

One really wonders when journalists in Pakistan will stop tarnishing people’s image in their petty attempts to dig out stories. Why is there incessant pressure to create myths about people and outstrip them to achieve political ends? Is this not a great disservice to our nation? Will this endless game of defamation ever come to an end?

I think it is only fair to expect journalists to act responsibly and raise issues in context after doing some research into the matter. Rambling incoherently with the intentions of confusing the nation and fostering an atmosphere of mistrust is completely uncalled for.

By Wasiq Ali
This article was written in response to Shaheen Sehbai’s article titled ‘The Limited Options of President Zardari’ on Jul 22, 2009

Regular readers of the Pakistani newspaper The News would by now know what is patently obvious. The paper’s group editor Mr. Shaheen Sehbai does not like President Asif Zardari and is anxious for the establishment to get rid of him. The question, however, is whether Mr. Sehbai is analyzing things as they are or projecting his wishes as a scenario.

Some of the criticism made by Mr. Sehbai is, of course, well within the boundaries of reporting. Others have also written about the Zardari government’s mistakes in choice of personnel and options. But no one speaks with certainty of the imminent collapse– the physical removal (hanging? murder?) of Pakistan’s elected President like Mr Sehbai. His writings reveal a pathological hatred of the man, something like the crazy and abusive postings on some blogs with clear ties to parties like Jamaat-e-Islami and Tehrik-e-Insaf.

Let us look at the headlines of Mr. Sehbai’s analyses published over the last 15 months. On May 24, 2008, his article was captioned,”Why Zardari has now jumped on Musharraf.” In this article he propounded his theory about how Zardari had been reluctant to take on Musharraf for personal reasons, ignoring the facts of the PPP leader’s gradual approach to securing democracy.

Then on August 29, 2008, he claimed that “a grave threat perception is fast developing in Islamabad’s key powers centers around Asif Zardari’s attempt to occupy the Presidency”. This was done in an article titled “Zardari has forced a confused establishment to decide quickly.” Quite clearly, Mr Sehbai was convinced that President Zardari was unacceptable to the establishment and that it would (or was it ‘should’) act against Mr. Zardari even before he became President.

On November 28, 2008, Mr. Sehbai’s situationer headlined “The winds blowing in Islamabad” once again spoke of strains between President Zardari and Prime Minister Gilani and the undesirability of Mr. Zardari’s leadership. But the article in which Mr. Sehbai outdid himself was the one published on December26, 2008 under the headline “Zardari given enough rope to hang himself” – a reflection of extreme insensitivity given that a democratically elected Prime Minister had been hanged by the military establishment only three decades ago.

Now once again Mr. Sehbai is telling the nation that the countdown has begun for President Zardari. For all those who might be worried about the current government’s stability, here is the good news. Mr. Sehbai has a long history of predicting in very stark terms the demise of rulers who do not do as he advocates. His angry rantings disturb and disrupt but do not always materialize in concrete steps by anyone, including the actions of the establishment whose cause he implicitly advances.

Soon after General Musharraf took over the country in a military coup in September 1999, Mr. Sehbai drew up a laundry list of things he wanted Musharraf to do for “the sake of the country.”

In an article titled “The Patient and the Surgeon” published in Dawn on October 22, 1999, Mr. Sehbai described Pakistan as a patient and General Musharraf as the surgeon. Then he quoted some unnamed observers (most likely himself) as saying, “General Musharraf cannot dawdle and straggle any more as he is losing the critical strike time that could give him the advantage of an early sweep against the mafias and layers and layers of corrupt elements all over the place. His administration has a very soft face so far and this has not caused enough fear and panic in the ranks of the corrupt. Publicity of his image of a relaxed man sitting with his dogs may have waited until he had shown some results.”

Mr Sehbai’s article went on to advise Musharraf in language a bit like his earlier articles about Mr Zardari:

“He has been overawed by the responsibility he had taken on his shoulders and now he is trying to get a consensus on how to move forward. This is creating an impression that the general is not confident of what he is doing.

Unity and show of total solidarity with the general against a manipulative corrupt regime was one thing. Complete harmony in the military ranks on how he proceeds is another and the moment there is any sign of dissent, the general will be attacked by howling dogs from all over the place….He should immediately sign the CTBT…

“On accountability the General should ensure the credibility of the process and scrupulously maintain its transparency. How he can do that is by simultaneously initiating immediate investigations into all known and unknown scandals which involve the armed forces. The Ukraine tanks deal, the French submarines scandal and involvement of the naval officers in it, the PAF jets upgrades issue just before Benazir was sacked. Once he opens these cases, he can look into anyone’s bedroom and no one will raise a finger.

“He should keep every person, whether civilian or military, with even the lightest baggage, away from his administration. The moment he appoints someone with a controversial background, the Pandora’s Box of criticism will open and he will then not be able to handle it.

“He should understand that the forces that he has toppled were intact well entrenched mafias with deep roots and long arms. They may be on the run in the short run but the moment they get an opening, they will hit back with full force and with a vengeance.”

Mr Sehbai concluded with the dramatic words, very much like the ones he is now using about the imminent demise of the Zardari presidency:

“Gen Musharraf has the last available opportunity anyone will ever have to put this mess right. He has the best credentials that one requires, legally he has acquired all the needed powers, he has almost unanimous support of the people, he has total access to all records and data, he has all the culprits nailed, he can get services of all the best brains that he needs and, above all, he has all the time he wants. If he cannot do this surgery and waits endlessly on the operating table with a knife in his hand, the patient will die and there will be no second chance.”

That was in October 1999, ladies and gentlemen. Of course as everyone knows General Musharraf did not follow Shaheen Sehbai’s recipe and still went on to rule for 9 more years and Pakistan – the patient on whom Mr. Sehbai desperately sought surgery performed under his own able guidance – did not die. Pakistan is resilient and it needs a normal constitutional, democratic process. The process will sometimes result in incompetence and corruption but that can and will be taken care of within the system, not through surgery by the establishment under Mr Sehbai’s scheme.

Instead of being the permanent Prophet of Doom who wants to run the country from the shadow, perhaps Shaheen Sehbai should come out openly into the arena of politics and then his desire for cleaning up the country in his way with the help of the establishment can possibly be fulfilled. Until then, his writings will only be seen as part of the various power games that go on in Islamabad and involve many many shadowy characters of which Shaheen Sehbai is only one.

It was ironic indeed that while reporting live on the incidents in Gojra where Christian minority was being burnt alive, all TV networks kept saying that there as an armed clash between two groups. This was very hypocritical and form of a self censorship.

The media that has become the self proclaimed flag bearers of truth and honesty finds it very easy to attack politicians, abuse them and threaten them with a judicial or military coup. But it is scared when it has to talk about extremists and terrorists.

All the key anchors of these TV channels were more focused on discussing how the Chief Justice Iftikhar led Supreme Court will deliver a final blow to the PPP government and President Asif Ali Zardari and how quickly that would come about. Shahid Masoods and Hamid Mirs did not find enough time on that day to jump and get live on TV and report the facts.