Ansar Abbasi rejoices that the US “is receiving dead bodies of its troops in Afghanistan more than before” and praises Taliban militants by saying “over a hundred thousands of US-led Nato troops, equipped with the modern weapons, have been reduced like rats by merely thousands of Islamic warriors within Afghanistan”. Again, passing over for a moment the shamefulness of rejoicing in death of anyone, we should consider just who are these “Islamic warriors” that receive Abbasi’s praise.

The Afghan Taliban has shocked independent human rights groups by using children as suicide bombers to attack NATO forces.

A tactic pioneered by al-Qaida but almost unheard of in Afghanistan until 2005, suicide bombing is becoming more popular with insurgents attempting to meet the massively intensified Nato campaign with their own surge of violence.

In one recent case a 12-year-old boy in Barmal district in Pakitika province, which borders Pakistan, killed four civilians and wounded many more when he detonated a vest full of explosives in a bazaar.

“They are relying more and more on children,” said Nader Nadery, from the country’s Independent Human Rights Commission, who thought the Taliban were struggling to recruit enough adults. “When somebody runs out of one tool they go to use the second one.”

Children are not the only ones killed and mutilated by Taliban. Women, too, are treated worse than farm animals. When 18-year-old Aisha tried to escape the abuse of her husband and his family, she was captured by Taliban and her face butchered to set an example to other women not to dare try to live with an ounce of dignity.

When Malim Abdul Habib became headmaster of Shaikh Mata Baba High School that educated girls, the Taliban took more than just his nose and ears.

“Four armed Taliban came to my uncle’s house at 1am,” said his nephew Abdullah Hakim, 25. “They told him he had to go with them. When he refused they stabbed him in the stomach in the yard and then cut off his head.”

Taliban militants forced Habib’s wife and children to stand and watch as they butchered him in front of their eyes.

These are the “Islamic Warriors” that Ansar Abbasi prays will defeat the US-led NATO forces. But what Islam is this that butchers women and children in cold blood? What Islam is this that forces a man’s wife and children to watch in horror as he is beheaded before their very eyes?

This question must not only be asked of Ansar Abbasi who is entitled to be a Taliban sympathiser if this is his belief, but it must also be asked of Jang Group which chooses to pay Ansar Abbasi to write columns that term the killers of women and children as “Islamic warriors” and then publishes them for the masses to read. Editors and publishers of The News may think that adding the disclaimer of “Viewpoint” is enough to absolve them of any responsibility, but their Ansar Abbasi is not merely an individual offering his ‘viewpoint’ rather he is paid by Jang Group to write these pieces. With freedom comes media responsibility and accountability. If Jang Group does not support this position, why are they paying for it?

It should be asked if The Nation believes that the suicide bombing outside a Quetta mosque that killed at least 11 people on Wednesday was also ‘martyrdom attack’.

When we first reported this practice by The Nation of acting as a Taliban mouthpiece, we wrote the following:

Reporting about important issues such as militancy, terrorism, war and security is a key role of the media. Doing this without direction from the government so that the reports are objective and unbiased is vital to a free media. But turning over use of media resources to the official spokespeople for any organization – especially a terrorist organization banned by the United Nations – is not free, objective, or unbiased. It is the opposite, which is called simply propaganda. We encourage The Nation to end this practice immediately.

Today, one year later, we repeat this call for The Nation to publish objective reporting of facts, not Taliban propaganda.

Notice that the Lashkar-e-Taiba founder is quick to say, “we are against all sorts of terrorism.” Of course sympathisers will claim that Jamaat-ud-Dawa is but a humble charity organisation. But if this is true, why in his next breath does he claim “we are the A-team of the Army” that is “against US invasions”? And here we thought that SSG was A-team of the Army. What type of charity organisation claims to be militant commandoes?

The important question here, though, is why Geo TV is inviting as its guest Hafiz Saeed who is classified as an international terrorist by the UN and Interpol? Freedom of speech does not mean free microphones, and freedom of media does not mean that Geo is obligated to provide a platform for Hafiz Saeed to spread his views. So why is Geo choosing to do this? Is it declaring an ideological sympathy with militants?

As for PEMRA, a gentle reminder:

PEMRA Code of Conduct for Media Broadcasters/Cable TV Operators states that:

(1) No programme shall be aired which:

(e) is likely to encourage and incite violence or contains anything
against maintenance of law and order or which promotes antinational or anti-state attitudes…

(o) contains material which may be detrimental to Pakistan’s relations
with friendly countries…

Here is how Agha Khalid’s piece appeared in the English language newspaper The News (Jang Group):

KARACHI: Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden had taken oath from his sons, guards and colleagues that if the Americans ever arrested him, his aides would shoot him instantly, sources told The News on Tuesday.

When US forces raided the compound where Osama was living, one of Osama’s guards and colleagues, Ahmad Shaikh, rushed to the second floor. Osama asked him if he remembered his oath. When Ahmad replied in the affirmative, Osama pulled out his pistol and gave it to Ahmad who fired a shot at Osama’s chest. Osama fell down and pointed his finger at his head. Ahmad then shot Osama in the head. In the meantime, US soldiers entered and grappled with Ahmad. They beat him up and took him along with them.

Here is how Agha Khalid’s piece appeared in the Urdu language newspaper Jang (Jang Group):

English translation:

Osama’s aide shot him in the head and the chest, American Marines grabbed him.

Daughter embraced the dying fathers body, American Marines hit her with rifle butts

Among other things retrieved from the secret hideout were the corpses of an Arab, 2 pakhtoons, a woman and 2 children.

Pets included 6 rabbits, 150 hens, a bhains (black variation of cow), a cow, a calf and a dog.

Karachi (Report/Agha Khalid) America’s proclaimed enemy number 1 and Al-Qaida’s leader Osama Bin Laden in Abbotabad’s local rural area of Bilal Town in his secret hideout, had kept 6 rabbits, 150 hens, a black cow, a brown cow and a calf as pets. Amazingly, Osama had adopted the hobby of the one person who called Osama his biggest enemy in Pakistan, General Pervaiz Musharraf, and kept a black Alsatian dog as a pet too who is still there. It is not known whether he kept the dog for pleasure or from a security point of view. Two cars in the house, one of which is a Suzuki Potohar license plat RIA- 3676 used by Osama’s sons and the second a Suzuki Carry Van M-7743 being use by Arshad, are still in good condition.

Jang has received reports created after Osama’s death, by different sensitive security institutions that took into account statements by 22 year old daughter Amal found alive but wounded and 26 year old woman Maryam in a big Rawalpindi hospital, where they are being treated. According to reports prepared by his close aides, Osama had taken an oath from his sons and trust worthy guards that if his arrest is inevitable that they should shoot him. By his own account, he did not want to be captured by the Americans alive and did not want to die a haram death by shooting himself. That is why survivors say that after hearing the helicopter sounds on top of the house and later on sounds of some people jumping on the rooftop and running towards their rooms and after listening to the blinding firing, Ahmed Sheikh came out of his room and started running towards Osama Bin Laden’s room who by that time had opened the room door and come out of his room. As soon as he saw Ahmed Sheikh he asked him “Do you remember your oath?” when Ahmed Sheikh nodded his head indicating a yes Osama extended him his own pistol he had in his hand, which he always kept by his bedside. By that time American Marines had reached the lower level so Ahmed fired at Osama’s chest.

Osama fell down and even with blood coming out of his chest, pointed weakly at his head to be made the target. Ahmed then fired the second shot. By that time Americans had come very near him and were asking him to drop his pistol while pointing their weapons at him. As soon as he dropped his pistol, the American Marines grabbed him and started torturing him. During this they kicked Osama bin Laden, who was taking his last breaths, with anger and hatred. At this situation, his daughter embraced the dying body of her father on which the American Marines hit her with their rifle butts seriously wounding her and now she is under treatment in a hospital in Rawalpindi.

American Marines on their way back took Osama’s dead body, Ahmed Sheikh, and that pistol which Ahmed Sheikh used to shoot Osama. According to reports at the time of this American special Marines operation, a woman, a child and 2 men died. One of these men is Osama’s son Ibrahim whose dead body is with Pakistani authorities. Among other things retrieved from the secret hideout of Osama were the corpses of an Arab, 2 pakhtoons, a woman and 2 children. According to another report, the wounded included 1 Arab, 4 women and 6 children. In a contrast to claims by American marines, reports by close “aides” to Osama also claim that Americans, along with Osama, took along his extremely trusted aid Ahmed Sheikh who shot him, the pistol that was used to shoot Osama and also took with them some women and children.

Along with other things that were recovered from Osama’s house that are still there, in bad condition, is a sports cycle, an exercise machine that according to the survivors was used by Osama and his sons, computer, hard disk, printer, 42 inch LCD and a mixture machine used for construction of houses. Other than this, all the rooms have beds in conditions that show that sleepers woke up in a condition of panic. These rooms show signs of hand fighting and resistance.

The picture of the house has been painted as that of a fortress type house that was constructed on 6 Marla created in 2 pieces. This seemingly ordinary house from outside is clearly divided in 2 parts from inside. In a smaller area, a small house was created alongside 3 bedrooms, which, according to the statements of the survivors, was residence of Charsaddah and Swat natives Arshad and his cousin Tariq Khan. Tariq Khan was unmarried. Arshad had one wife and 4 children. His oldest son Asif’s age is reported to be around 8 years and the age of the husband and wife themselves to be roughly between 40-45.

American Marines, upon entering the house, targeted this part first, in which Arshad and Tariq were residing. This part clearly shows signs of resistance, by Arshad and Tariq and hence American Marines killed them all. Along with Tariq and Arshad, his wife and 4 children were also killed in this attack. The other portion was residence of Osama Bin Laden and his family. Next to it was a big lawn in which the cattle were tied. Rabbits were pets too and there was small room created separately for the dog. There was a guest room created in the area where Tariq and Arshad lived where foreign guests came and stayed who according to survivors never stayed for more than one night and when such guests came, Osama Bin Laden didn’t sleep throughout the night but stayed awake chatting with guests all night long.

According to reports created by national agencies, by the end of 2002, Tariq Khan came to Abbotabad and contacted Fazal-ur-Rehman son of Hajji Ahmed Zaman, who was a farmer and owner of this land in this new city. Tariq Khan bought 3 Canal land from him and then he would visit the land from time to time. After some time Arshad came along with him and made a deal with Fazal-ur-Rehman once again for 3 Marla land. And this is how in the cover of the 2003 earthquake reconstruction in this area, the construction of this particular house was also started.

A native of this area Zain Mohammad, son of Ameer Husain Qaum Abbasi was appointed the watchman for this house. And he stayed the watchman for this till the construction of this house was completed. He said in his statement the 25 to 26 people participated in the construction of this house on a daily basis and great attention was paid even to minute details. These people say that now they realize this house was being created for someone important that is why the security point of view was given utmost importance in its construction. During this time, Arshad often used to come from Peshawar. He used to make payments to the local contractor Gul Ahmed constructing the house. Gul Ahmed is told to be a native of the village Laryan near Abbotabad. Watchman Zain Mohammad was let go after the construction of the house was complete and after that no one was allowed to go inside the house.

Reports also mention that the house had two main gates and both had been installed with automatic locks and these automatic locks had the characteristic that they opened and closed themselves after the specific security codes were put in. Arshad and Tariq lived together in one part of the house with their families. Arshad had a French cut beard. He used to go to the nearby mosque regularly to offer prayers. He often gave charity for the construction of the mosque. He often also took his children and walked around the village or went to specific shops in the village for supplies. He also took care of feed for birds and animals kept for Osama bin Laden.

Reports also mention that 2 helicopters belonging to the Marines operation team reached on top of Osama Bin Laden’s house at approximately 11:45 and about 11 or 12 commandos repelled down from one of the helicopters and jumped on the rooftop. After that one of the helicopter returned and the other increased its altitude and started monitoring the operation. After approximately 10-15 minutes 3 more helicopters arrived. Now 4 helicopters were hovering above Osama Bin Laden’s house. Then suddenly one of the helicopters tried to land in the yard of the house, which according to report gatherers is because of wanting to transfer Osama’s dead body to one of the helicopters. Because of this helicopter tried to land in the narrow yard and crashed.

Later on Obama’s dead body and some people were put on helicopters by attaching ladders. Then these helicopters, after the completion of a 40-minute duration operation, headed towards an unknown destination. Because of firing and cannon shots from the helicopter, both the gates and eastern walls of the house have collapsed and the roof has also sustained heavy damage. Just like this, another source claims that American Marines have used an airbase connected to Tarbela dam for the operation and then later on Osama’s dead body along with the captured people were first taken to a NATO cantonment connected to Kabul airport and then to an airbase carrier in the Arabian ocean.

Big difference, isn’t it?

Agha Khalid is very careful to humanize Osama from the very beginning, describing his livestock and pets as if Osama were any common man. The reporter describes in fine detail the style beard worn by Osama’s trusted aide Arshad and his charity works. The families of Osama and his aides are noted by counting the number of women and children. And there’s more here than will be readily apparent if you can’t read the original Urdu. For example, Agha Khalid uses terms like “thay” and “unhoon” and “un” “gaye” etc that imply respect for Osama. Reading Agha Khalid’s description, one gets the impression that Osama was a simple villager and not a billionaire international terrorist responsible for countless deaths hiding from every intelligence agency in the world.

Agha Khalid goes on describing the brutality of the American Marines (actually they weren’t Marines but Navy SEALS according to US reports) as kicking bin Laden while he’s laying on the floor dying. He describes quite dramatically Osama’s daughter rushing over to embrace her dying father and, once again, American Marines brutally attacking her while she mourns. Throughout the piece, Agha Khalid counts the number of women and children he claims were killed, making it seem like a ruthless massacre. The entire drama is perfectly concocted to arouse the sympathies for Osama bin Laden as an unjustly abused martyr and the Americans as vicious attack dogs.

But the level of detail given to this piece also gives it away as pure fiction. In order to describe the scene such as this, the author or his source would have to be present in the room from before and after the Americans arrived. As the saying goes, ‘dead men tell no tales’, so how is this possible?

Since this piece by Agha Khalid must be pure fiction, then it naturally follows to ask what purpose it is intended to serve. The immediate answer is troubling – a sympathetic tale filled with honourific terms suggests that the intention of the piece is to stoke the flames of anti-Americanism and favour for militants. A further question that must be asked is whether such reporting represents the intentions of Jang Group or whether they were put up to this task by someone and who that someone is.

The problem with two-faced media could not be more boldly illustrated than in the comparison of these pieces by the same reporter carried in newspapers owned by the same media group (Jang). The single paragraph printed in The News is little more than a questionable report that an aide and not American troops killed Osama. But behind the veil of Urdu, away from Western eyes, Jang Group paints a sympathetic portrait of a simple man and his family brutally attacked and murdered by a nameless, faceless invading force from the West.

The nation is struggling to answer difficult questions such as how an international terrorist like Osama bin Laden could be hiding in plain sight of Kakul and how a team of American commandos entered Pakistani territory and left without being detected. The people are confused and puzzled about what has happened on that fateful day and the several years leading up to it. As we look for answers, we are being hand fed propaganda by a schizophrenic media that chooses its tales to suit its audience.

As CNN and BBC were showing thousands of Americans gathering outside the White House, cheering the news, the sounds and sights coming from Pakistani channels are at best bizarre.

As news anchors shoot away reading the fast unfolding news, they seem unsure whether to describe Osama’s reported death as ‘wo marey ja chukey hein’ or ‘mara ja chukka hai’, – both mean ‘Osama has been killed’, but the first sentence uses words like ‘chukey hein’ that in Urdu and Hindi is used to give respect to someone older.

It should also be noted here that in discussing the event, Hamid Mir on GEO TV referred to Osama bin Laden as ‘Shaheed’ also which is a term of respect for a martyr.

So, as Pakistani newscasters (especially on the ever-animated hyperbolic private channels), continue to zigzag between ‘chuka’ and ‘chukey,’ it was only a matter of time before we began seeing what is called the ghairatbrigade, or the pride brigade take their seats in front of the camera.

Pakistan’s private TV channels are brimming with the most gung-ho characters of this brigade – talk show hosts with an addiction for anything conspiratorial and rhetorical, and never far from using sheer jingoism to give weight to the shenanigans of the Pakistani right-wing, especially regarding the rightists’ blinding hatred for the US, the West, India and Pakistani politicians.

So until the writing of this piece, and merely an hour after the news about Osama’s death poured in, the usual suspects in this respect are up and running questioning the validity of the report.

The two star anchors of big media houses started behaving as if their jobs are now on the line since Osama is dead and America seems to have won at least this aspect of its war against al Qaeda. Then one after the other they started breaking with a photo which was published on the internet sometime in 2009.

The cynical display is quite pathetic, almost akin to the shock the loud mouthpieces of the agitated right-wing exhibited when Raymond Davis made a smooth exit from Pakistan, on the behest of Pakistan’s security agencies that, ironically, were alleged to have been propping up a number of media men and politicians such as Imran Khan to pump up anti-Americanism in Pakistan.

Respected journalists and analysts like Najam Sethi, Ayesha Siddiuqa, Hasan Askari and Farrukh Saleem are right to suggest that large sections of the country’s intelligence agencies are using certain media personnel and politicians to drown America’s concerns about Pakistan protecting certain al Qaeda members and those belonging to militant Islamist outfits that America says the Pakistani establishment considers to be ‘friendly.’

Nevertheless, whereas the largely knee-jerk and quasi-reactionary narrative peddled in the name of ghairat in the media and from the mouths of some politicians and TV anchors is now sounding as empty as empty can be, the government and the military-establishment will have to think on its feet.

With Osama’s dramatic demise, the Pakistani establishment cannot hide anymore behind the padding its clumsy doings in the war against terrorists was being provided to them by sympathetic media men.

They have to answer one very simple question: In spite of the Americans claiming that Osama was hiding somewhere in Pakistan, why did the Pakistani military, who too has lost numerous soldiers in its war against al Qaeda and the Taliban, continued to deny it?

What’s more, in a frenzy to impress their masters in certain sections of Pakistan’s security apparatus, these media men and politicians were not even immune to unleash rhetoric that can leave Pakistan and its people not only isolated, but suffering from collective bouts of paranoia, delusion and xenophobia.

Here we would add that since the writing of this piece, Ansar Abbasi has gone on TV and defended Osama bin Laden saying “we only believe Osama was a terrorist because America told us so”.

Whereas now it is becoming more than clear that Pakistani security agencies and the Pakistani government did have an inkling at least as to what the Americans were planning to do, instead of asking the question ‘what Osama was doing hiding in a compound situated in an area where there is sufficient presence of the Pakistan army and ISI,’ these TV men were quick to suggest that the man killed may not be Osama.

In fact, one of them confidently announced that according his sources (that’s a nice way of putting it), the man killed was not Osama. But lo and behold! Only an hour after curious claim came the report that the Americans have released the pictures of the dead body and face of Osama.

As I go on monitoring the media, the atrocious narrative questioning the validity of the news championed by these talk show hosts-turned-anchors-turned-presenters had fallen on its face and gradually replaced by a line that suggests that the Pakistan military (not the government) should also be given credit for this prize catch. That is when the race to publish the image started.

Some people in Waziristan have requested that I write about a column published in the Urdu daily Mashriq on January 2, 2011. Following is the summary of the column, titled ‘Hakeemullah Mehsud’s lover’.

A senior female French journalist contacted a tribal journalist form Waziristan via Facebook. The French lady requested him to help her with some research on Waziristan. The tribesman agreed and the French journalist landed in Pakistan. During their meeting, the French lady said that she was madly in love with Hakeemullah Mehsud, a Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) commander and that she wished to marry him. She also said that one of her friends wanted to marry Qari Hussain, the Ustad-e-Fidayeen or master trainer of suicide bombers in the army of the TTP. She further said that another four of her friends also wished to marry some Taliban commanders from the TTP. Out of utter surprise, the tribal journalist wondered how that could be because people in Europe believe that the Taliban are brutal beasts. The lady blatantly responded that, in actuality, the Europeans are the brutal beasts, not the Taliban. She said that no one in Europe had the courage to speak the truth when it came to the Taliban. Everyone who had the opportunity to closely interact with the Taliban had been deeply impressed by them. Take, for example, the lady journalist, Mariam, who had been imprisoned by the Taliban. She became so impressed by the Taliban that she converted to Islam. People who care so much for their prisoners would certainly be much kinder towards their wives and children. In Europe, the family system has collapsed. Children do not know who their fathers are. Wives have no clue about the whereabouts of their husbands. My friends and I have studied Islam and now we wish to know about the Taliban. This is, therefore, why we wish to marry them. We will burn our French citizenship documents in front of the media in Waziristan to terminate our ties with our native land. We will become tribal women forever. The lady also said that she was madly in love with Hakeemullah and would marry him come what may. “What if Hakeemullah refuses?” asked the tribal journalist. The lady’s response was: “The heart speaks to the heart”. The tribesman warned her that, under Pakistani law, she could not go to Waziristan. The lady said she would plead to Allah to punish Pakistan for having laws that stood in the way of her and her friends’ marriages with the Taliban. The lady was crying uncontrollably. Finally, the tribal journalist, who had full sympathy for the woman but had no means to help her, agreed to spread her story through a newspaper column.

The tribesmen who brought this story to my attention said that the story had been planted by the intelligence agencies of Pakistan to romanticise the beastly Taliban in the eyes of young tribesmen. One of them said that he saw a group of teenage tribesmen discussing this story with keen interest. He tore into pieces the newspaper copy being held in the hands of the teenagers and had a two-hour long counselling session with them whereby he explained to them that such fake stories were planted in Urdu newspapers to lure young tribesmen into terrorism, and that it had nothing to offer but only death and destruction for FATA and its people. The young men seemed convinced, but the tribesman expressed the apprehension that there must be many teenage tribesmen out there who might have been misled into jihad by the story. The tribesmen have no hope in the Pakistani media. One of them even said that the Urdu media was capable of prostituting its conscience to spread malicious information about FATA. They, therefore, request the journalistic community in France to take note of the fake story and remain on guard so that their name is never again misused in misleading the tribal youth into a so-called jihad that clearly threatens the western streets with violence.

The tribesmen also guess that perhaps the journalist Mariam, referred to in the fake story, is Yvonne Ridley. They complain that Ridley has been at the forefront in defending Aafia Siddiqui. If the journalist Mariam is indeed Ridley, they expect her to come forward and condemn those who misuse her name and conversion to Islam — which is her sovereign right — for dirty tricks to lure innocent tribal youth into the fold of terrorism that has devastated FATA and threatens Ridley’s own country with violence. For once, Ridley should show that she stands with the victims of Pakistani state terrorism, like the people of FATA, rather than terrorists who enjoy covert state support.

The reason I wish to write about this planted story in Urdu daily Mashriq is to give to the sane-minded Pakistani English readership a glimpse of how the Urdu media has lowered itself in perpetuating the military establishment’s inflicted terrorism in FATA. I also understand that the forces of sanity in Pakistan have been reduced to a frightened state of mind by the religious extremists. They could not even rise to the occasion upon the assassination of Salmaan Taseer and the threats to Sherry Rehman. How can one expect them to stand up to the military establishment — the original force behind all terrorism in Pakistan — in support of the people of FATA, the people whose sufferings do not mean anything significant for the wider Pakistani society? I just wish to bring to their notice that disappointment and even hatred against the military is accumulating in FATA. The cowardice of those who should speak up for what is right will also be a factor in the case of any future catastrophe in Pakistan.

This piece was originally published by Daily Times on 19 February 2011. The writer is a PhD Research Fellow with the University of Oslo and currently writing a book, Taliban and Anti-Taliban

In Wednesday’s newspaper, The Nation‘s Opinion page was dominated by a piece by the late Brigadier General S.K. Malik – a favourite of Gen. Zia-ul-Haq’s and the author of jihadi field manual, The Quranic Concept of War. Most Opinion articles are used to explain or analyse current events. The Brig (R) Malik piece published by The Nation, “Holy Prophet’s Defence Policy” was noticeable because it does not appear to address any specific current issue. But this piece of Zia-era propaganda did not appear in a vacuum. Rather it appeared on the same page as two editorials that were over-the-top in their bald face anti-India stance.

The first editorial about Law Minister Babar Awan’s statement against  the arrest of Rahat Fateh Ali goes beyond what the Law Minister said and claims that the arrest shows that India is “inimically opposed to the very existence of Pakistan and to Pakistanis”. Nawa-i-Waqt even takes a direct swipe at competitor media group Jang Group by saying, “those who propounded the Aman ki Asha had carried out Aman ki Nirasha”. This editorial quotes from Law Minister Babar Awan’s own statement to media on the subject from Monday, but it is expanded on his statement by even criticising Awan for not taking “the same position with the elements in government who are eager to engage in a dialogue with India”. The Nation uses the arrest of Fatah Ali Khan to request the government to cease talks with India until Kashmir is settled, even though these are unrelated issues.

This was followed by a second editorial that again refers to “New Delhi’s deadly machinations on our soil”. Most irresponsibly, The Nation even goes as far as threatening ‘nuclear clouds’ if India does not settle the Kashmir issue ‘as early as possible’.

The next page which claims the headline of ‘Analysis’ includes two pieces by General (Retd) Mirza Aslam Beg and S.M. Hali which are virulently anti-American and anti-British in their content by claiming that these Western countries are anti-Muslim in their policies. In the case of Gen (R) Beg’s column it also takes the tone of pro-Islamist sympathies and supporting Zia-era policies of propping up a puppet Islamist regime in Kabul as a policy of ‘strategic depth’.

Nevertheless, the US and its allies are allergic to Islamists coming to power. For example, Hamas won the elections in Palestine, but was not allowed to form the government, and thus the Israelis are now facing the consequences. Similarly, the mujahideen in Afghanistan, who fought the war to expel the Soviets, were not allowed to form the government and were pushed into a contrived civil war. And now, as they emerge the winner, efforts are afoot to deny them their due share in power. This obsession, in fact, has been the cause of the American defeat in Afghanistan. They have lost the war in Afghanistan, but find it difficult to rationalise the defeat without hurting their ego and pride as a superpower.

Gen (R) Beg also praises “towering personality like Imam Khomeini of Iran” and the Islamic Revolution in Iran, but he ignores the fact that the people of Iran are rising up to protest the Islamic regime. Gen (R) Beg also praises Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood for the revolution that overthrew the dictator Honsi Mubarak, even though that was a revolution of the people, not Muslim Brotherhood and protesters there told journalists that “The Brothers have been effectively sidelined”.

The article by S.M. Hali criticises UK PM David Cameron for speaking against Islamic militancy even though the British PM clearly stated that it is not Islam or the Ummah which is committing acts of terrorism but only a small group of extremists. S.M. Hali admits this point, but then says that Cameron’s proposal for “greater integration of Muslim minorities” into British culture. Hali accuses the PM for stirring ‘a hornets nest’, but is he not doing the same with a provocatively titled piece, ‘Cameron targets Muslim community’? It would be pertinent to note that S.M. Hali is the same ‘defence analyst’ who termed the cricket scandal a RAW conspiracy. Neither did The Nation inform readers that S.M. Hali is also a military man since he is Group Captain (Retd) of Pakistan Air Force.

Any one of these pieces by itself may not be worthy of notice, but taken together as the complete package of opinions and analysis by retired military in one issue of The Nation must raise eyebrows. It is a demonstration that far from being an ideology of the past, Zia’s manipulation of religious sentiments is being used again to hypnotize the masses. Obviously The Nation can take whatever position they choose on issues, but when a package of clear ideological indoctrination surfaces, it is proper to ask whether Nawa-i-Waqt is serving the cause of informing the people or promoting pro-jihadi ideologies left over from the Zia era.

Meher Bokhari’s story should be a permanent fixture in journalism school as a warning to those future media stars who might be tempted to sacrifice all consideration of ethics, responsibility, and the safety of others for a boost in ratings and personal careers. The final chapter in Bokhari’s story has not been written, though, and how it plays out could have lasting effects on the media industry.

Meher Bokhari has found drawn a bit of attention to herself, though probably not for reasons she had dreamed. The Samaa TV talk show host raised eyebrows during her interview with Salmaan Taseer last November during which she fought with the Governor, accusing him of undermining justice and fanning the flames of religious hatred by questioning the blasphemy laws. Meher even read a fatwa against the Governor on the air.

Two months later, Governor Taseer was shot to death by one of his guards in Islamabad who claims he committed the act because of the Governor’s criticism of the blasphemy laws. Bokhari infamously followed the Governor’s murder with a programme on 5 January that asked if the confessed gunman Mumtaz Qadri is hero or terrorist.

It should be noted that this was not the first time that Meher Bokhari had projected extremist views, rather she regularly hosted guests including Muhammad Ahmed Ludhianvi who is a leader of banned terrorist organization Sipah-e-Sahaba.

On 11 January, PEMRA imposed a fine of Rs.1 Million on Samaa TV for projecting terrorists. One week later, Meher Bokhari was conspicuously missing from the set of last night’s News Beat, Farieha Idrees appearing in her place. This did not go unnoticed by media watchers, and some are saying that News Beat host has been sacked by Samaa TV, though we have not been able to obtain official confirmation at this time. There are also rumours that Bokhari has been offered a show at Express along with an increase in pay, but again these remain only rumours.

Rumours notwithstanding, what eventually happens with Meher Bokhari is of interest, however, as it will send two important signals to Pakistan’s media groups: The most important being whether PEMRA is a watch dog with no teeth, but also whether the media chiefs are willing to reward a TV anchor who exploits religion to boost ratings. Depending on the signal sent, we could see significant changes in the way media approaches sensitive topics.

If Meher Bokhari gets a raise following a large PEMRA fine, TV anchors will see her as an example of how to advance their careers: pander to the extremist gallery and exploit religious sentiments while shouting your way to the top. Media chiefs likewise will see that the government’s regulatory body is toothless and will ignore warnings and fines as they attempt to boost ratings by outdoing each other with more and more outrageous programming.

On the other hand, Meher Bokhari could serve as a warning for up and coming journalists and producers who learn that there are red lines that are not crossed in civilized discourse. Any temptation towards fatwa baiting would have to be weighed against losing one’s job and reputation in the industry and we might even see the public discourse come to settle at a more moderate level.

As Meher Bokhari’s story continues to be revealed, its final chapter will tell much about the future of Pakistani media.

Ali Dayan Hasan, senior South Asia researcher at Human Rights Watch, makes an astute observation about the role of media in the spread of the jihadi mindset in his op-ed for the International Herald Tribune:

The media no longer dares to scrutinize judicial conduct for fear of “contempt” proceedings by a judiciary that has had the temerity to hold a hearing on whether parliament could amend the constitution. Journalists self-censor out of fear of military and intelligence agencies. But the media has remained free to propagate an Islamist, nationalist, and anti-Western line.

While media has the responsibility to be a government watch dog, government is not the only social institution that must be checked. When President Zardari threatened to ban jokes against him, there was a media uproar. But when the judiciary threatens ‘contempt’ against those who question them, the media is silent. Is this not an equally or possibly even worse abuse of power?

When the Governor Punjab is assassinated by a man brainwashed by a jihadi mindset, the TV anchors do not condemn this act of violence. Rather, they ask the question, “Is he a hero?” This is not a new development, either. We saw the same self censorship when extremists burnt alive a group of Christians in Gojra. As we wrote at the time:

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.

Many journalists claim to be courageous defenders of the truth when they are attacking politicians and government policies. But when they are faced with a judiciary, intelligence agencies, or violent extremists they are silent. It’s not enough to criticise the president. It takes real courage to criticise those who will abuse their power to hide the truth.

It’s time our journalists start acting like real watch dogs, and not lap dogs for anti-democratic forces in our country.

Pakistan’s electronic media is now a repository of the grand opinion setters of the Urdu press. Almost all channels have employed conservative writers of the Urdu press and given them immense outreach to air their well-known views on nationalism, religion and ‘culture’. Whilst the primary pastime of these wise men is to fan anti-Americanism, their domestic agenda is directly related to what the clergy, since 1947, has wanted Pakistan to be: an unadulterated Islamic state. The only caveat is that none of them can define what an Islamic state and society entails.

In recent days, there has been a concerted campaign to malign Veena Malik, our television starlet who has dared to participate in the famous and brainless Indian reality TV show, “Bigg Boss”. Pakistani artists have continuously defied jingoism and performed across the border. Currently, Rahat Fateh Ali Khan and Atif Aslam are immensely popular in India and their nationality makes little difference to millions who admire them.

Veena’s case is altogether different. She appeared on “Bigg Boss” with Begum Nawazish Ali in the first phase. Viewers voted Ali out while Veena Malik survives on the show as a lone Pakistani and thus far has integrated herself into mainstream Indian TV imperatives. Her conduct on the show is a huge concern for the clergy who think the way she dresses is immodest, her interaction with men is unbecoming and, therefore, she has undermined the great values of an Islamic nation. Incidentally, the fortress of Islam is also known for honour killings, Hudood laws and a wide gambit of discriminatory laws and practices. Never mind, only we are allowed to mistreat our women.

In a nutshell, Veena Malik has challenged the middle class morality embedded in the Urdu press and, by extension, its electronic counterpart. The mere fact that a Pakistani performer is prancing around in western clothes and playing to the Indian viewers’ gallery by indulging in mock-romance with a ‘Hindu’ actor has alerted the guardians of public morality also endearingly known as the ghairat brigade. The imbecile notion of ghairat largely focuses on controlling women and regurgitating militant nationalist narratives through state and non-state actors. Anchor after anchor has prodded hostile commentary on Veena Malik and declared her short of wajib-ul-qatl. This is not too dissimilar to the public floggings of the Taliban variety.

Thus, the brainwashing project of Pakistan’s questionable journalists continues. Hate the US, crush India, fire nuclear weapons to free Kashmir and let mullahs set head money for alleged blasphemers. These are the perennial messages, with a few exceptions, relayed on a continuous basis.

It is also true that Indian TV and its inspiration, the Bollywood circus, resort to the worst kind of commodification of women. By supporting Veena’s choice, one is not condoning all that is wrong with the corporate model of entertainment across the border. However, that is a separate debate. If unofficial estimates are correct, Indian TV channels such as Star Plus and Colors had a huge following in Pakistan before their transmission was banned. This demand for Indian pop culture is a reality and needs to be dealt with. Passing fatwas and declaring cross-border entertainment a ‘Hindu’ conspiracy is simply disingenuous. It is ironic that these same TV channels play Indian film songs to comment on serious political developments.

Given that we live in a country where media regulation is absent and any critical voice is construed as part of an anti-media campaign, challenging such hypocrisy is problematic. Millions of Pakistanis cannot be held hostage to a few moralists and their zeal to purify public culture. Ours is a plural and diverse country and cannot be tailored into a linear, fascist society. The thirty-year-long project to Islamicise Pakistan has faced the innate resilience of our lived cultures. This is why Veena Malik’s right of artistic expression needs to be protected.

Raza Rumi is consulting editor for The Friday Times and a blogger at RazaRumi.com. Originally published in The Express Tribune, December 24^th, 2010.