Abbasi then observes that this is a difference in opinion between Babar Awan and Salmaan Taseer, the latter favouring release of Asia Masih – the Christian woman who was recently sentenced under the controversial law. Because these two politicians of the same political party disagree on the issue, Ansar Abbasi claims that “it shows serious cracks within the ruling elite about its policy on the blasphemy law.”

This was the first item that raised my eyebrows. Actually, two officials having a disagreement on an issue is quite common, is it not? Especially when these two men are not even part of the same government – Babar Awan is a federal minister and Salmaan Taseer is a provincial governor – how is it some evidence of cracks within ‘the ruling elite’? And who exactly does Abbasi mean when he says ‘ruling elite’? Surely Mian Nawaz Sharif and Altaf Hussain must be considered members of the ‘ruling elite’ and they disagree with President Zardari and each other seemingly every day! It seems that Ansar Abbasi has thrown in this bit of his opinion in order to take a swipe at the governing political party and not due to any substance.

This possibility is made even more probable once the reader continues through the final paragraphs of Ansar Abbasi’s column. Here, he deviates from the topic of Babar Awan’s statements and begins listing a series of accusations against the minister as if to soil his name only. Ansar Abbasi mentions Harris Steel Mill case and Monticello University, neither of which have anything to do with the blasphemy law. He then goes on to say, “Babar Awan is also generally believed as the man responsible for the government’s confrontational mode with the judiciary.” Really? This is ‘generally believed’? And what evidence does Ansar Abbasi base this claim on? Has he done some polling of the nation? And even if it were true, what would it have to do with the blasphemy law? Perhaps this is only another instance of Ansar Abbasi being both source and reporter.

The statements of a minister on a controversial law such as the blasphemy laws adopted under General Zia are important news items to be reported. The people should be aware of what their government officials are saying on important topics. But Ansar Abbasi’s practise of infusing his own opinions and adding paragraphs about unrelated scandals reeks of political opportunism, not journalism. Please, Mr Ansar Abbasi, stick to the facts.

It’s ironic that Ansar Abbasi claims that the government is trying to “scandalise and ridicule the superior judiciary”, all the while his same newspaper publishes articles that uses phrases like “the government’s ugly effort” and “desparate”. Abbasi in his column says that “the government has launched this frontal attack against the Chief Justice”, but in another article in the same paper is titled, “Govt attacked, judiciary backed”. Which is it?

But that is not the only double-standard that is obvious. Ansar Abbasi says that in questioning the validity of President Zardari’s decision to reinstate the Chief Justice, NAB “ignored the basic fact that the issues regarding the judges restoration or those reappointed under the Naek formula have already settled and could not be questioned anymore.”

So the judges restoration which occurred in 2009 cannot be questioned anymore, but the Swiss cases which were dismissed in 2008 should be re-opened? NRO which was promulgated in 2007 can be repealed? Is there a rule that only that which can be used as a weapon against Zardari is fair to be questioned, and anything else is “already settled”?

This same logic is applied to the NAB statements about the restoration of the judiciary. Ansar Abbasi says that, “the NAB…has tried to question the validity of the March 2009 restoration of the judges through an executive order issued by Prime Minister Gilani”. He says that this cannot be questioned because “the Supreme Court in its July 31, 2009 decision has already settled all such matters”.

But Ansar Abbasi uses a different standard for NAB. He says that “The NAB’s reply to the Supreme Court in a BoP corruption case is not only contemptuous but is also flawed and filed by a person, Irfan Qadir, who along with the minister in-charge of the NAB Babar Awan is required to be questioned by NAB in the same BoP fraud case.”

According to Ansar Abbasi’s logic, Irfan Qadir and Babar Awan should not be able to file a reply in a BoP case because they may be affected by the case. But it is perfectly acceptable for the Supreme Court to settle the matter of its own restoration!

In fact, Ansar Abbasi tries to smear the names of Irfan Qadir and Babar Awan by saying they are accused by Harris Steel owner Afzal Sheikh. This is a bald faced attempt to smear the names of these men without giving them the proper right to have any complaints or accusations cleared in a court. For someone who claims to care about justice, Ansar Abbasi continues to be selective in who he believes deserves the right of fair treatment and who is guilty by his own decree.

And after he continues to behave this way, Ansar Abbasi has the cheek to whine that nobody will talk to him! He complains in his column,

The government at different levels was even contacted last week by a staffer of The News Investigations Wing regarding what was cooking up in the corridors of power against the Chief Justice of Pakistan and the superior judiciary but it was again denied.

Can you imagine this phone call?

“Assalamu Alaikum”

“Walaikum assalam. I am a staffer of The News. Please let me speak to the crony in charge of cooking up contemptuous attacks against the Chief Justice?”

“I’m sorry, what are you talking about?”

“You know who I am talking about! He is in the Corridors of Power and works on the ‘Scandalise and Ridicule the superior judiciary’ portfolio!”

“Sir, I do not know what you are talking about. This is the government of Pakistan, are you sure you have dialed the right number?”

“How can you not know what I am talking about! It was reported in The News last month!!! So you are denying me to speak with the crony in charge of conspiracy to target the Chief Justice!”

“Sir, I am going to have to hang up the phone because we have important work to do in the government and do not have time to waste with prank phone calls.”

Ansar Abbasi calls the NAB’s reply “simply disgraceful, unprecedented and unheard of”. His entire column is a poison pen letter that makes accusations with double standards, innuendo, and no evidence. All of this he thinks is okay because his column has been labeled “News Analysis”. But this is not analysis. It is simply a political speech, and another embarrassment for Mir Rahman.

Our self righteous media’s erstwhile investigative reporters, Ansar Abbasi and Tariq Butt are at it again. In their yet another  report cum analysis titled “Confusion prevails over fact-finding committee report- Rehman Malik, Babar Awan to record statements now” with the sub-heading “What is the PPP Core Committee up to?” dated May 5, 2010 (http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=28639) both gentlemen have yet again targeted Rehman Malik and Babar Awan.

It seems that the investigations of our media and focus has been towards the post-shooting / bombing scenario, the movement of vehicles, hosing down of the crime scene and most importantly the role of Rehman Malik and Babar Awan rather than who fired from the left, was there another shooter at the back and how did the bomber get to Liaqat Bagh.

I have a few questions for our erstwhile friends i.e. Ansar Abbasi and Tariq Butt:

1. Would BB have been alive even if the vehicle which “ran off with sinister motives” (as being portrayed by them) was there and she would have reached the hospital in time? Ms. Naheed Khan has said previously in public that when BB fell in her lap, she was already dead with blood gushing out with a fracture to her skull.
2. Ms. Naheed Khan and Safdar Abbasi were for sure the closest to BB. The Liaqat Bagh public meeting was entirely arranged by Naheed Khan and her team with all liaising of the security arrangements done by them. Have they been questioned that why people on the ground did not come up and take responsibility of the change of route and opening of gates that allowed people to come to BB’s vehicle? Remember Naheed Khan used to control a number of things and the Liaqat Bagh meeting was entirely her territory.
3. Why didn’t Naheed Khan, Safdar Abbasi and Makhdoom Amin Fahim make themselves available for fact finding? Off course Babar Awan and Rehman Malik are already the bad people of the PPP as they have been targeted from day one, however, others who could have provided some important clues about the last few minutes of BB didn’t present themselves to the committee.
4. Sherry Rehman is being quoted that she will present herself to the committee if called. I have seen videos and pictures of the Liaquat Bagh meeting. I could see Farzana Raja, Zamarrud Khan, Nayyar Bukhari, Mehreen Anver Raja etc on the stage near BB, but I somehow missed Sherry Rehman. Was she there even? Usually one could see her to be visible closest to BB or where the camera would be.

It seems that the focus is deliberately being shifted to the aftermath of BB’s death than what lead to her being assassinated. She was a target for radicals and was someone would have dealt with the extremists on her aggressive terms.

Post her assassination, there was a change of guard at the PPP. It is all but natural for a new leader to bring his team, which is what President Zardari has done. The team that was closest to BB i.e. Naheed Khan and Safdar Abbasi were shown the door. Off course, PPP is a big political party where internal differences have always been a major factor. Ansar Abbasi, Tariq Butt, Shahid Masood etc are playing a dirty role by instigating statements or rather putting words in mouths of people who are no more in favor and try to create divisions in the party.

It is my suggestion that focus of investigation should be on the threats to BB and what the impact of her assassination would be on Pakistan and the region. PPP has not been a very organized party in the past. When BB returned to Pakistan on 18^th October, 2007, despite of a plan of not having the entire leadership on the truck due to the terrorist threat, the entire party leadership preferred to be on the truck. The terrorists could have easily wiped the entire party leadership in one go. The “lack of professionalism” as indicated by the UN Commission report is a very valid point which the PPP should focus on.

As far as our analysts are concerned, I request them to be more objective in their reporting; stop being analysts and for once validate your sources. However, if because of their ideological or political inclinations (e.g. links with the Hizbut-Tahrir or PML-N), these two authors are content with the exchange of their objectivity with biased opinion, then perhaps not much can be done about them or their analyses (often misrepresented as news reports).