“It is also being said…” by who? Who is saying this? What is their credibility?

“If we can speculate…” Please don’t! We need facts, not rumour and innuendo.

This is not news. This is just gossip.

Print PDF

پروگرام کا ابتدائی حصہ دیکھ کر یوں لگتا ھے کہ جیسے جاوید صاحب اھم  اشو کو چھوڑ کر غیر اھم باتوں پر زیادہ توجہ دے رھے ھیں۔ بجائے اس کے کہ وہ اختر آباد کے لوگوں کے قتل کی مزمت کریں جاوید صاحب حکومت سے اس ڈآیور کے لیے تمغے کی ڈیمانڈ کرنے لگے۔

اس شرمناک روئیے کو پاکستان میڈیا سے ختم کرنے کی ضرورت ھے اور جاوید چودھری کے اس رویے پر مزمت کی بہت سخت ضرورت ھے۔

Print PDF

On the one hand was SAFMA co-founder Marvi Sirmed, a political commentator and journalist who holds Masters’ degrees in Political Science, Science Education and English Linguistics and has worked with Members of Parliament. She has also been the Institutional Development Specialist with the Ministry of Women Development, Government of Pakistan and as Policy Advocacy Specialist with National Commission on the Status of Women.

On the other hand was Zaid Hamid, a political commentator who has a Bachelor of Engineering (BE) degree in Computer Systems Engineering and the individual at the center of SAFMA’s complaint. Mr Zaid Hamid is the former host of the programme Brasstacks.

During the debate between Marvi Sirmed and Zaid Hamid one point of disagreement related to a claim by Marvi Sirmed that Allama Muhammad Iqbal was against the creation of an Islamic state. Miss Sirmed claimed that she had proof in a letter written by Iqbal to The Times newspaper of London in 1931. Due to the research of a reader of this blog, we are able to confirm that this letter was written. A photocopy of the letter is below:

The question is part of an ongoing debate about  the way that Zaid Hamid presents Allama Iqbal in his media programmes as an advocate of the creation of a new Khalifat. An example can be seen in this video clip:

But was this the view of Allama Iqbal? According to Dr Javid Iqbal writing in October 1987 issue of Iqbal Review, the answer is no. Justice Iqbal wrote that Allama Iqbal “has no hesitation in approving the establishment of a multi-party system or political groupings in modern Islamic Democracies, for, in his opinion, this was in accordance with the practice of early republican phase in Islam”. He goes on to quote Allama Iqbal as supporting an expressly democratic system of governance and rejecting an imperialist Khalifat as “failed in practice”.

Let us now see how the Grand National Assembly has exercised this power of Ijtihad in regard to the institution of Khilafat. According to Sunni law, the appointment of an Imam or Khalifah is absolutely indespensable. The first question that arises in this connexion is this – Should the Caliphate be vested in a single person? Turkey’s Ijtihad is that according to the spirit of Islam the Caliphate or Imamate can be vested in a body of persons, or an elected Assembly…Personally, I believe the Turkish view is perfectly sound. It is hardly necessary to argue this point. The republican form of government is not only thoroughly consistent with the spirit of Islam, but has also become a necessity in view of the new forces that are set free in the world of Islam^*…In order to understand the Turkish view let us seek the guidance of Ibn Khildun – the first philosophical historian of Islam.

Ibn Khildun, in his famous ‘Prolegomena’, mentions three distinct views of the idea of Universal Caliphate in Islam.

(1) That Universal Imamate is a Divine institution, and is consequently indispensable.

(2) That it is merely a matter of expediency.

(3) That there is no need of such an institution. The last view was taken by the Khawarij.

It seems that modern Turkey has shifted from the first to the second view, i.e. to the view of the Mu‘tazillah who regarded Universal Imamate as a matter of expediency only. The Turks argue that in our political thinking we must be guided by our past political experience which points unmistakably to the fact that the idea of Universal Imamate has failed in practice. It was a workable idea when the Empire of Islam was intact. Since the break-up of this Empire independent political units have arisen. The idea has ceased to be operative and cannot work as a living factor in the organisation of modern Islam^*…Such is the attitude of the modern Turk, inspired as he is by the reality of experience, and not by the scholastic reasoning of jurists who lived and thought under different conditions of life.

Would Allama Iqbal have supported Zaid Hamid’s desire to see “the flag of Pakistan fly atop Delhi fort”? Did he believe in “Two Nation Theory”? Unfortunately, Iqbal is not here to answer the question himself, and so we are left to debate our own interpretations and hypotheses about his beliefs. Debates about interpretations of the words and intentions of Jinnah and Iqbal will continue, and it is perfectly reasonable to debate these issues as a part of discussions about politics and history. But these debates should be based in the actual words of the fathers of the nation, and not fantasy re-imaginings of what someone might wish Iqbal or Jinnah had said.

Marvi Sirmed and Zaid Hamid are both entitled to their own visions for the future of Pakistan. But nobody is entitled to re-writing the past.

^*Emphasis added

Print PDF

سب سے پھلے ایکسپریس ٹریبیون انگلش کی یہ مکمل رپورٹ دیکھیے۔ اس بات کا دھیان رھے کہ اس انگریزی کالم میں کھیں بھی نام نھیں بتائے گئے اور یہ صاف صاف لکھ دیا گیا کہ چمکانی پولیس اسٹیشن نے اس واقع کی تصدیق نھیں کی ھے اور انھیں اس واقع کے بارے میں علم نھیں۔ اسی خبر کا ایک حصہ نیچے ملاحظہ کیجئے۔

اب اسی موضوع پر ایکسپریس اردو اخبار کی کلپ ماحظہ فرمائیں۔

جیسے کہ قارین ملاحظہ فرما سکتے ھیں ایکسپریس اخبار اپنی اردو پڑھنے والے قارین کو کچھ اور اور انگلش پڑھنے والے قارین کو کچھ اور خبریں پیش کرتے ھیں۔

اردو اخبار میں ان چار امریکی باشندوں کو فوجی قرار دے دیا گیا ھے اور ان کے من گھڑت نام تک بنا کر پیش کئیے گئے ھیں۔ اردو اخبار تو یہ خبر دیتا ھے کہ ان امریکی فوجیوں مایک کا نام کرنل پاول ھے اور ایک کا نام لیفٹیننٹ جان لیوی ھے۔ واضح رھے کہ یہ نام من گھڑت ھیں اور اردو ایکسپریس اپنے قارین کو بلا تصدیق غلط انفارم کر رھا ھے۔

یہ بات بھی واضح رھے کہ اردو اخبار میں یہ بھی نہیں بتایا گیا کہ چمکانی پولیس تھانے نے اس واقع کی تصدیق نھیں کی اور نا ھی اس موضوع پر کوئی پریس سٹیٹمینٹ دی ھے۔ روزنامہ ایکسپریس اخبار نے یھان تک خبر دی کہ صوبائی حکومت نے دفتر خارجہ کو آگاہ کر دیا ھے جب کے ایسی کوئی بات نھیں ھوئی۔ جب چمکانی پولیس تھانہ ھی تصدیق نھیں کر رھا تو صوبائی حکومت کو کیسے کوئی خبر مل سکتی ھے۔

صاف اور شفاف رپورٹنگ پاکستانی عوام کا حق ھے اور ایکسپریس کی دوغلی رپورٹنگ پاکستانی عوام سے انکا یہ حق چھینتی نظر آتی ھے۔

Print PDF

Anyone watching the program can see that Shahid Masood’s famous ability to grill his guests has gone missing when Imran Khan appears on the set. Rather, Masood falls over himself to praise the PTI leader as gaining popularity. It is hard to watch the clip without feeling that Shahid Masood is trying to create a soft corner for the potential 2013 contender in public’s eyes.

Obviously Shahid Masood can support any politician he chooses, but the question is whether or not in his capacity as a journalist would Shahid Masood extend the same gentle treatment to Asif Zardari whose failure the TV anchor began predicting from day one.

Journalists and anchors have a responsibility to the audience to act as a neutral moderator. Rather than trying to become best friends with Imran Khan, Shahid Masood could have asked his guest whether the Pew poll he mentions can be reflective of national support since it was conducted in majorly urban populated areas and reflected mostly the opinions of youth and urbanites, a vote bank not completely representative of Pakistan’s 180+ million population. He could have asked for details of how Imran Khan would address the issues facing the nation.

Showing favour to one politician over another one is not journalism, it’s campaigning. Shahid Masood should not pronounce Imran Khan as not competitive, but neither should he crown him as king. The people of Pakistan will choose their leaders, not the media elites. In order to make that decision wisely, the people rely on journalists to ask tough but fair questions of all politicians.

Print PDF

The News and Jang added an extra body, making the total 10 deaths.

Express Tribune added another two bodies, bringing the total death count to 12.

Daily Express and Nawa-i-Waqt each raised the body count to 15.

Each article appears to have the death count confirmed by ‘security officials’, but contains different numbers – even news outlets that are part of the same media group. Geo has different numbers than Jang and Express Tribune has different numbers than Daily Express. Which report is correct? We do not know. What we do know is that this is another example of poor reporting and editing which serves only to confuse the public on grave issues facing the nation.

Print PDF

The first conspiracy theory registered states that, despite the Taliban claiming responsibility for the killing, it was really a CIA operation. This was stated by chief of Jamaat-i-Islami Sindh chapter Asadullah Bhutto and duly reported by Express Tribune.

It must be asked why Express Tribune believed it was important to publish such a statement, especially in an otherwise factual report. Often the excuse for reporting such conspiracy theories is that sensationalism sells, and this is only feeding the demands of the public. But there is increasing evidence that the answer could be that a significant number of journalists actually believe these conspiracy theories.

In an email discussion immediately after the assassination on Wednesday, several prominent journalists including a Bureau Chief wrote the following:

Zahir Shah Sherazi, Bureau Chief Dawn News wrote in an email:

A question always come to my mind, Do you all believe its always the militants and extremists elements who are doing it OR there may be another hand involved to cash in on such controversies, we have to keep in mind that also
regards
zahir

Mian Najib Ur Rehman, Publisher/Editor Daily Lahore Post wrote the following:

Yes! if Raymond Davis is being investigated for having links with terrorist networks . then this issue automatically links itself with Raymond Davis i am sure he must be knowing that people are coming for gun down the minister today . i must say again it is a very sad day again for Pakistan after the assassination of Sal-man Ta seer .. today once again the voices gunned down – -

lord save us . our country. and its people ..

Ameen

Journalist Khalil Ahmed writes,

May be another Raymond Davis killed the Minority Minister to further pressurize Pakistan. Its too early to comment who is behind this assassination. Thanks.

Journalist Yasir Zahoor writes,

Yeap Khalid ahmed I m agree with u ……….before some days American CIA was already warned to Pakistani intelligence agency (as foreign media reported) that they would take revenge of Raymond Davis issue ……… should also mention this ……. except blasphemy law …

Conspiracy theories have already reduced much of Pakistani media to a mockery on the world stage. It has become a regular feature in international headlines that ‘transparently silly’ conspiracy theories are the bread and butter of our mainstream journalism.

Often journalists and editors are given the benefit of the doubt and it is accepted that this is more cynicism than incompetence on the part of the journalists. But if we have entered a phase in which news reports are being filed and edited by journalists who cannot tell the difference between fact and fantasy and who readily accept wild conspiracies over obvious truths, then we are in serious trouble indeed.

Print PDF

Hamid Mir explains that he used the term because he had seen it used by an American author, Jonah Goldberg.

I would like to invite his attention towards the book Liberal Fascism written by American Journalist Jonah Goldberg, published in 2008. Mr Goldberg wrote the history of liberal fascism from Mussolini to the American Left and declared Hillary Clinton as a liberal fascist. If an American journalist can use the term liberal fascism then the Pakistani media can also make comparisons between religious extremists and liberal-fascists.

While it’s true that this term was used by the American Jonah Goldberg, the facts are a little more complicated. Jonah Goldberg is not a journalist like Hamid Mir or Talat Hussain. Jonah Goldberg is a right-wing political columnist who is a regular guest on Glenn Beck and a commentator on FOX News which he even described as a populist, tabloidy network.

Jonah Goldberg made headlines last fall for calling Islamophobia “a myth” and said that Americans should stop worrying about Muslim sentiments regarding plans to build a New York City mosque. Is this really who Hamid Mir is taking his ideas from?

For the record, here is famous American cultural critic Jon Stewart interviewing Jonah Goldberg about the book that Hamid Mir is such a fan of:

It should be noted here that this term was also discussed recently as the topic of Kamran Shahid’s show Front Line on Express News of 6 February.

As could be expected, Orya Maqbool Jan presented some fairly right-wing views, but nothing particularly noteworthy and overall the entire programme seemed to be an excuse for Kamran Shahid complaining about English-language media not allowing rebuttals – a complaint that is proven meaningless by the very English-language articles by Khaled Ahmed and Hamid Mir which consist of an ongoing debate and rebuttal on the specific issue!

Hamid Mir has been writing about the bogey of ‘liberal fascist’ for a month, and the only definition of what exactly is a ‘liberal fascist’ that anyone seems to be able to come up with is ‘someone who doesn’t agree with me’. Certainly Hamid Mir is entitled to his opinion, but we must ask whether the time and energy of our journalists is best spent having a debate about name-calling while the country struggles with serious issues of economy and security.

Print PDF

Actress Veena Malik crying after being abused on Front Line.

If you have not already heard about Friday night’s episode of Front Line with Kamran Shahid, you have probably been hiding under a rock. On what is allegedly a hard hitting news talk show, the topic of discussion was an actress’s appearance on the reality show Bigg Boss. What actually took place was an attempted public humiliation of a woman thrown to the wolves of celebrity muftis. It was painful to watch as a the actress suffered baseless accusations against her character and her reputation, all with complete lack of evidence on the part of her accuser.

While the worst behaved on the program by all counts was Mufti Abdul Qawi in his treatment of Veena, special consideration should be given to Kamran Shahid. After all, the host cannot pretend that he could not expect this outcome as only one month ago he invited Mufti Abdul Qawi to appear to discuss the same topic in what turned into another media circus.

Just as he has in the past, Abdul Qawi accused the actress of embarrassing Pakistan and Islam in the eyes of the world with her behaviour on the set of Bigg Boss. But on demand to explain specifically what actions she had done to bring shame to her country or her religion, the Celebrity Mufti was left at a loss.

That is not to say that Pakistan and Islam did not receive a black eye. In fact, what was probably expected to be a bit of juicy entertainment by exploiting the religious sentimentalities of the masses behind the veil of Urdu has become an international scandal. And it is not Veena Malik who is the villain but Kamran Shahid and Abdul Qawi.

Saturday morning, Americans in Los Angeles the location of the Hollywood movie industry picked up their newspaper The Los Angeles Times to see the smiling face of Veena Malik and read an article about her appearance on Front Line and the abuse heaped upon her while the host sat quietly watching. The story was also published by The Associated Press which syndicates reports to newspapers across the world.

We have chronicled on this blog previously how journalists wear two faces in the media – a liberal enlightened mask for their English-language audience, and a right-wing pseudo-fundamentalist mask for Urdu. They believe that they can keep up this charade because they will not be exposed between the two audiences.

Yet more and more we are seeing these cynical media exploiters of the masses exposed. The barriers between language are not solid walls, and just as we move fluidly between English and Urdu, so we are able to notice the tricks that these so-called journalists are playing.

Kamran Shahid, make no mistake, is solely responsible for last night’s programme. He had interviewed Abdul Qawi on the same subject matter only one month prior, so he could expect the result. Kamran Shahid could have chosen any number of pressing topics, and any number of guests. He chose Abdul Qawi for a reason. But that does not in any way excuse this celebrity Mufti for his own actions. Just because a circus chooses to hire a clown, the clown is still responsible for his own performance.

Mufti Abdul Qawi’s treatment of Veena Malik would be considered abuse on a civilized news programme. Sana Saleem describes the setting perfectly for Dawn Blog today:

Throughout the hour-long programme, the host kept attacking Veena by using words such as “oryan,” “fahash” and kept insisting that Veena had brought shame to Islam, Pakistan and our culture. The Mufti on the show was asked to judge Veena’s presence on Bigg Boss in the light of Islam. Here, I must also add that the host tried his best to emphasise that the Mufti had the right to impose a fatwa on Veena for her actions.

Yet by his own admission, Mufti Abdul Qawi has not actually watched episodes of Bigg Boss that he is so virulently criticising. At this point in the programme, Kamran Shahid should have removed this Celebrity Mufti from the set and apologized to Veena Malik. Instead he chose to press for a fatwa on her.

It is not a brave man that beats a defenseless woman. It is even more shameful to be the man who orchestrates such a beating. That Kamran Shahid tried to encourage this celebrity Mufti to not only abuse Veena Malik but to impose a fatwa crosses the line from irresponsible to dangerous. It should be asked whether in doing so Kamran Shahid intentionally or unintentionally attempted to incite violence and lawlessness against Veena Malik. PEMRA would be justified to launch an immediate investigation.

Here again Sana Saleem again makes an important point:

Veena Malik is just one example how certain factions of our media have resorted to moral policing and even advocating fatwas on anyone and everyone. Never mind that we have never pushed for fatwas against suicide bombings, honour killings and many other heinous acts justified in the name of Islam.

From Ansar Abbasi’s pseudo-religious diatribe against Fashion Week in Jang to Talat Hussain’s attack on Angelina Jolie in Daily Express, so-called journalists are building careers out of exploiting religion and attacking women. This is not journalism. And do not be mistaken – this cynical game is not being played in a private parlour but on the world’s stage.

The greatest insult to Pakistan and Islam comes not from the behaviour of an actress on a reality TV programme, but the vicious abuse she receives when she comes home.

Print PDF

A blog post on Dawn caught my attention and I think it deserves further discussion. The post by Shyema, ‘Is Veema Malik a threat to Islam?’ discusses Sunday’s episode of Front Line in which Kamran Shahid did his best to whip up a juicy fight between Ali Saleem and Mufti Abdul Qaqi over Veena Malik’s appearance on Indian reality show Bigg Boss.

Ali Saleem, famous for his television persona Begum Nawazish Ali, mentioned the Hajj Scam, the corruption of our leaders, the silence of police on the face of torture and the unjustified killings which have become commonplace in our country but somehow all of that does not hold any weight to Veena getting comfy with an Indian (read: Hindu). Hats off to him for keeping his cool while the Mufti sahab accused him of “bay ghairthi, bay sharmi and bay hayai”. What a “mujrim” he is in this day and age, dressing up as a woman on screen.

So basically, Islam is under threat because of people like Veena who have joined the ranks of culprits such as suicide bombers who kill dozens by the day in the name of religion. But wait – while being put on the spot upon the insistence of Ali Saleem, the Mufti did condemn suicide bombers – so I suppose the religious leaders have done their duty.

Ali Saleem tries to make the excellent point that why are we arguing about Veena Malik and some mindless reality show when there are serious issues that deserve discussion. It should be noted that Front Line is supposed to be a serious show on Express News channel – not some mindless tabloid programme. Shyema makes the point perfectly:

I don’t think I’m giving enough credit to the show’s host here. By inviting a conservative Mufti and a controversially liberal celebrity to debate, the host already knew what the outcome would be: a mockery of both the guests. How would the show get its ratings and popularity without an angry religious scholar and a controversial celebrity attacking each other on screen?

Farzana Bari, a human rights activist, who was also invited to the debate, pointed out that neither has she nor Mufti Abdul Qawi seen the programme, and nor could they see the scandalous clips playing on the screen at the time of the debate. And the clips that were playing on screen were carefully chosen to show Veena at her best, or worst – but then again, nothing sensationalises better than the same clips shown over and over again.

But all of that didn’t seem to be important. What was important was that a Pakistani actress was causing the nation to hang its head in shame! As if being in the limelight for terrorism, honour killings, fake degrees, corrupt leaders and Baitullah Mehsud wasn’t enough, now we have Veena Malik who also wants to destroy the identity of Pakistan. The charged-up youth and ever-ready-to-protest religious parties must get their placards ready now – this is after all a matter of national and religious identity and Veena’s agenda must be destroyed!

Whatever is the point of Kamran’s show except to raise the blood pressure of viewers and increase ratings by providing a good fight to watch? Considering the various issues facing the country, who cares what Ali Saleem and Abdul Qaqi think about Veena?

If there is such a concern about the image of Pakistan in the world, why is Kamran Shahid hosting discussions about Bigg Boss and not the media groups that were so easily fooled by an obviously fake Wikileaks story, and worst of all those media groups that continue to peddle such false stories? Has this not done more to damage Pakistan’s image in the world than a Lollywood actress on a reality show?

Just as reporters have a responsibility to verify their facts, producers and editors have a responsibility to select topics and guests that can truly inform the citizens on important topics. If Kamran Shahid wants to host a celebrity gossip show, that is his right. But don’t host a celebrity gossip show and call it news.

Print PDF