Posts Tagged ‘Shahid Masood’

« Older Entries

Allama Iqbal, Zaid Hamid, and Khalifat ideology

Friday, August 26th, 2011

Following Zaid Hamid’s recent appearance on Meher Bokhari’s show Crossfire, South Asian Free Media Association (SAFMA) announced that it was planning to file a libel notice against Zaid Hamid for accusations he made during the programme. Last night, to discuss the issue on his show Shahid Nama, Shahid Masood invited as his guests two individuals whose views could not be further apart.

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:

Letter to The Times by Allama Muhammed Iqbal

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

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Express News | 3 Comments »

Competition for PTI media advisor

Tuesday, August 16th, 2011

It seems Azim Mian may have some competition in his quest to be PTI media advisor. A dear reader pointed us to the following video clip that shows Shahid Masood interviewing Imran Khan on his programme Shahid Nama, and it leaves us shaking our heads.

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.

 

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Express News | No Comments »

Facilitating Fascism

Monday, June 7th, 2010

Reading Nadeem Paracha’s column yesterday, I was immediately reminded of a video clip from Shahid Masood’s TV programme that was recently posted on the blog Let Us Build Pakistan. The clip features a conversation between Shahid Masood and Zakir Naik, and purports, in Zakir’s way, to “prove scientifically” that non-Muslims should not be allowed to openly practise their religions in Islamic countries but the Muslims should be going into non-Muslim countries to promote Islam. What was most interesting about this clip was Shahid Masood’s reaction to Zakir Naik’s statements: nothing.

Here is the clip from Shahid Masood’s conversation with Zakir Naik:

Of course, this is not the first time that Shahid Masood has invited controversial figures to his show. Not long ago he got “both sides” from Hamid Gul and Bharat Verma on his show, Merey Mutabiq.

But does an argument between Hamid Gul and Bharat Verma really represent “both sides” of anything? These are both quite extreme voices in their respective countries. Neither represents a large segment of the population, so what Shahid Masood has done, really, is create a Circus of Extremism. This might make for entertaining TV, but what does it mean for the country?

With this question in mind, let’s read an excerpt from Nadeem Paracha:

Many Pakistanis routinely continue to deny the fact that the monsters behind all ‘faithful’ barbarism cutting this country into bits are the mutant products of what our own state and society have been up to in the past 30 years or so. For years a convoluted narrative has been circulated by the state, the clerics, schools and now the electronic media: Pakistan was made in the name of Islam (read, a theocratic state).

Thus, only Muslims (mainly orthodox Sunnis, shall we say?) have the right to rule, run and benefit from this country. ‘Minority’ religions and ‘heretical’ sects living as Pakistani citizens are not to be trusted. They need to be constitutionally, socially and culturally isolated. Parliamentary democracy can’t be trusted either. It unleashes ethnic forces, ‘corruption’ and undermines the role of the military and that of Islam in the state’s make-up. It threatens the ‘unity’ of the country — a unity based on an unrealistically homogeneous understanding of Islam (mainly concocted by the state and its right-wing allies). Most of our political, economic and social ills are due to the diabolical conspiracies hatched by our many enemies (especially India, Israel and the West).

The bad news is that such beliefs are symptomatic of a society that has started to respond enthusiastically to the major symptoms of fascist thought. Symptoms such as a xenophobic exhibition of nationalism; disdain for recognition of human rights; identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause; supremacy of the military (might); obsession with national security; intertwining of religion and government; disdain for intellectual thought and the arts, and an obsession with crime and punishment.

Have not many Pakistanis willingly allowed themselves to be captured in all the macho and paranoid trappings of the mentioned symptoms? Does this not point at a country ripening and readying itself for an all-round fascist scenario?

Certainly there will  be some who say that Shahid Masood does the right thing by not injecting himself into the discussions as much and being combative. But the question must be asked what the influence is when Shahid Masood chooses to give airtime to guests who represent extremist ideologies.

Nadeem Paracha makes an excellent point:

We call ourselves ‘moderate Muslims’, and yet applaud or quietly tolerate the hate-spewing claptrap that pours out from our mosques and TV screens. We cheer about the fact that Pakistan is one of the very few democratic Muslim countries with a constitution, and yet we will not speak a word about clauses and sections in the same constitution that have triggered violence and repression against women and sanctioned a religious apartheid that only allows an orthodox, pious Muslim democratic rights to rule the country or run in an election.

Does it matter whether or not Shahid Masood himself says that non-Muslims should be forced to practise their religion in hiding? Or is it enough that he provides a platform for these views to be spoken? Are we really going to find a path to peace from a discussion between Hamid Gul and Bharat Verma? Or is that discussion set up for failure?

One does not have to be an extremist to be a facilitator of extremism. Our media is free to choose what guests will appear and what messages will be aired to the mass audience. With this freedom comes some responsibility, though. As Nadeem Paracha correctly says,

We do not debate. We react and then huddle up behind our flimsy and lopsided historical and national narratives about what being a Pakistani and Muslim is all about, cursing the world for our ills, looking out for infidels and heretics among us, or for scapegoats in the shape of media-constructed punching bags.

It’s time for the media to end this Circus of Extremism, and to use its incredible ability to promote a message of rational discussion. That doesn’t mean it has to take one side or another, but it needs to be factual and it needs to be fair. Right now, its failing at both.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Merey Mutabiq | 4 Comments »

Paranoia Growing at Jang Group

Monday, May 24th, 2010

Reading The News today, one would be forgiven for thinking that Jang was an oppressed minority rather than the wealthy corporation that it is. What is, perhaps, more interesting, however, is that the news organization has begun to write paranoid stories about super secret conspiracies against some of its employees. As usual, though, Jang knows just who the conspirators are.

To be sure, this blog does not condone any violence or destruction of property at demonstrations against Jang and Geo offices in Karachi. If the people have a problem with Jang, they certainly have the right to air their greivances – but this should be done only in a peaceful and constructive manner.

That said, Jang’s reaction in an editorial in today’s The News is a bit over-the-top. The hyperventilating writers call the protests “the face of facism,” not realizing that a protest by the people against a large corporation that engages in political propaganda is the opposite of facism. Then, Jang goes on to blame the present government for the protests, despite not providing one bit of evidence for such a claim.

 Its vandalism, its violence on those guarding our offices and the harassment of our workers, all are the latest feathers in the crown of the present ‘democratic’ government which has made no bones about its intention to target this group, and through it the whole of free and independent media. 

Jang, of course, sees itself as the ‘freedom fighter’ who is ‘speaking truth to power’ (this despite the fact that top Jang journalists such as Ansar Abbasi, Shaheen Sehbai, and Hamid Mir have consistently had a distinct problem with ‘truth’) and the present government as the face of all that is evil.

We are aware of the price of truth spoken in the face of power, particularly when power is reeking of corruption, incompetence and illegitimacy from top to toe.

Just yesterday, Ansar Abbasi wrote an article that made some claims about decisions made at a secret meeting at the Presidency (how would Ansar Abbasi of all people know anything that was discussed at Presidency?), and then made his own pronouncement that the government is in contempt of court!

This is not “speaking truth to power,” as Jang might want to believe, but simply making up storied and issuing pretend court decisions. It’s just silly.

But the paranoia does not stop there. Today’s The News features an unattributed article that claims that government is preparing fake tapes of Jang reporters. The article does not provide any sources, only saying that “highly reliable sources” have told him that

Surprisingly, however, in a departure from the past practice the smear campaign shall not be carried out by the Interior Ministry, but actually is being overseen by a group of intelligence functionaries considered very close to the bosses of the Law Ministry.

In order to believe this, you have to believe that the government is carrying out a super-top-secret plan to create fake tapes, and that they are telling the people who are targeted. It simply makes no sense.

Reading the list of supposed targets, though, I couldn’t help but chuckle.

The hit list comprises (so far): Hamid Mir (Host, Capital Talk), Shaheen Sehbai (Group Editor, The News), Ansar Abbassi (Editor Investigations, The News) Mohammad Malick (Resident Editor, The News Islamabad-Rawalpindi), Kamran Khan (Host, Aaj Kamran Khan Kay Saath) and Dr Shahid Masood (Host, Meray Mutabiq).

Ah, yes. Six of the most inflated egos in journalism today. Also six of the people who are, quite frankly, some of the worst journalists around. Certainly each of these would love to believe that the entire government was focused on him. While they are preening their pretty haircuts, they fantasize about being the heroes of the modern world fighting against the ‘fascists’ that were elected by the people.

If we could run power plants on the egos of some of our journalists, we would not have any energy crisis for centuries. Sadly, one of the many side-effects of an inflated ego is a growing sense of paranoia. The egoist believes that everyone is out to get him, even though the truth is most people don’t even care about him. There seems to be a growing sense of paranoia within Jang. Let’s hope they are able to find a little bit of humilty before their paranoia consumes them completely.

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Jang | 18 Comments »

Merey Mutabiq Using Misleading Edits?

Tuesday, May 4th, 2010

Editing Merey MutabiqThe following paragraph comes from Kamran Shafi’s column in today’s Dawn:

I made the mistake of my life when I appeared, against better counsel, on Dr Shahid Masood’s Meray Mutabiq which was recorded and then edited. And by golly was it edited! Suffice it to say that I was shocked out of my wits, and greatly saddened, at the show as aired.

This is most interesting. Is Dr. Shahid Masood using editing to mislead his viewers and misrepresent his guests? This is always a danger with TV, and it’s hard to know what is real and what has been edited, especially with the advanced technology in today’s software. It would be interesting to know more about the situation here, and to get a glimpse “behind the curtain” at these TV programmes.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Merey Mutabiq | 5 Comments »

Ansar Abbasi Out LBW (Learn Before Writing!)

Monday, April 5th, 2010

Ansar Abbasi Out LBW - Learn Before Writing!Poor Mr. Ansar Abbasi – he does not know how to quit while he is ahead. After his very poor showing on Friday, Mr. Abbasi has decided to have another go at writing his “news analysis” about the NRO. The column, “After Sindh card, Zardari uses Benazir,” is Ansar’s attempt at playing judge against President Zardari. Of course, he did not do his homework and is therefore out “LBW” – Learn Before Writing!

Today’s column by Ansar Abbasi is, once again, published as “news analysis.” Even though it is a rather incendiary opinion piece, The News (Jang) has not seen fit to put it properly on the opinion page. This is an unfortunate habit of the The News as it is quite misleading to readers.

But perhaps more unfortunate is the fact that Mr. Ansar Abbasi continues to believe that insulting rants are a proper substitute for research and reason.

Take, for example, his suggestion that, “Legally and constitutionally speaking, there is no way out for the government but to implement the Supreme Court’s order in letter and spirit. But practically if the government does this, it would mean political death of the PPP’s co-chairman against whom the corruption cases are too serious.”

Actually, this is not quite true. The constitution states in Article 248 that certain officials may not be tried while they are in office. Any cases against them will have to be heard once their term is complete.

248. Protection to President, Governor, Minister, etc.
(1) The President, a Governor, the Prime Minister, a Federal Minister, a Minister of State, the Chief Minister and a Provincial Minister shall not he answerable to any court for the exercise of powers and performance of functions of their respective offices or for any act done or purported to be done in the exercise of those powers and performance of those functions:

Provided that nothing in this clause shall be construed as restricting the right of any person to bring appropriate proceedings against the Federation or a Province.

(2) No criminal proceedings whatsoever shall be instituted or continued against the President or a Governor in any court during his term of office.

(3) No process for the arrest or imprisonment of the President or a Governor shall issue from any court during his term of office.

(4) No civil proceedings in which relief is claimed against the President or a Governor shall be instituted during his term of office in respect of anything done by or not done by him in his personal capacity whether before or after he enters upon his office unless, at least sixty days before the proceedings are instituted, notice in writing has been delivered to him, or sent to him in the manner prescribed by law, stating the nature of the proceedings, the cause of action, the name, description and place of residence of the party by whom the proceedings are to be instituted and the relief which the party claims.

This is no secret. In fact, it has been stated quite clearly by the government that this is their position. And it is not an unreasonable position, even if it is inconvenient to Ansar Abbasi’s political tirade. The Swiss prosecutor has been adamant about his refusal to reopen a case against Zardari until his term expires.

[Geneva prosecutor Daniel Zappelli] said he can’t reopen the case against Zardari, who was elected president in 2008 after years of battling corruption allegations, because he enjoys “absolute immunity” as a head of state.

“We could go further only if the competent authorities in Pakistan decide to lift the immunity of the head of state, which I do not know whether it is possible according to their constitution,” said Zappelli, speaking in English. “If not, we can’t. Absolutely not. Period.”

Ansar Abbasi then goes on to peddle outrageous rumours including that a major political party was planning to attack the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

After the NRO decision, the unnerved PPP was alleged to be even planning physical attacks on the Chief Justice of Pakistan to embarrass Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry. Money was also reportedly distributed amongst some student leaders of the PSF to organise demonstrations against the judiciary.

If this is true, it is a serious charge that should be taken up with the proper authorities immediately. I ask that Ansar Abbasi immediately file a grievance and reveal his evidence. Otherwise, what are we to think except that he has made the whole thing up?

Also, wasn’t it only three days earlier that this same Ansar Abbasi was condemning a foreign newspaper for quoting an unnamed source? But notice that now Abbasi does not even pretend to have heard his rumour from some “anonymous source.” Rather, he simply says it is “alleged.” Alleged by whom? Surely Ansar Abbasi does not want to be a hypocrite. Please, sir, tell us who your source is for these serious accusations.

Ansar Abbasi’s entire column is actually a poor attempt for him to play judge, jury, and executioner of Asif Zardari. Abbasi says the Supreme Court “is serious to ensure a fair trial of past corruption cases.” Perhaps they are, but Ansar Abbasi sees no need for a fair trial. Instead, he says “Allowing a fair trial to prove his innocence would be a risky gamble that everyone in the party knows is bound to be lost…”

What is the point of bothering with a trial, when Ansar Abbasi has already judged the outcome? This blog takes no position on the issue of Asif Zardari’s guilt or innocence. There is very important legal discussion about Presidential immunity, and even if the President did not enjoy this immunity, surely the courts are the proper place to hold a trial, not the last issue of The News. Perhaps Mr. Abbasi is challenging Shahid Masood to be “Chief Justice of the Media”?

Ansar Abbasi: Challenging Shahid Massod to be Chief Justice of Media?

Ansar Abbasi: Challenging Shahid Massod to be Chief Justice of Media?

Ansar closes his opinion by saying that, “Instead of being befooled by political slogans, the people of Pakistan deserve to know if there is any truth in the NAB’s claim…” Perhaps Mr. Abbasi would do us all the favour of ceasing his foolish political sloganeering, then, so that proper journalists can do their work. At the very least, sir, we beg of you…Learn Before Writing!

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Jang, The News | 12 Comments »

Are So-Called Defense Experts Really Connected?

Friday, March 19th, 2010

Interesting article received from a dear reader by email. It raises the question of why some journalists who are considered defense experts were not invited to a recent press briefing by the military. As always, please write in your tips and articles to pakistanmediawatch@gmail.com!

Not invited

A few weeks ago, Army Chief Gen. Kiyani invited editors and columnists to a press briefing. Interestingly, Ahmed Quraishi, Shireen Mazari, Shaheen Sehbai, and Shahid Masood were not invited. Was this an intentional snub by the military brass to send a clear signal that these people do not speak for the military? Or was it just that these journalists are so irrelevant that the Army did not think to invite them?

Usually, if a reporter is truly close to the establishment, they are not only invited, they are given special access like a closed door briefing before the official briefing so that they can get background statements from the officials. These four not only got no invitation to a closed door briefing, they were not even invited to the regular press briefing!

Ahmed Quraishi, Shireen Mazari, Shaheen Sehbai, and Shahid Masood are well known for claiming to be unofficial experts on the Pakistani establishment – especially the military. They are always saying that they have spoken to high up sources, even when what they say turns out to be wrong. But it seems from this latest snub that they are not as connected as they claim to be.

Ahmed Quraishi and Shireen Mazari in particular tend to represent ‘old think’ on security issues. They support a military coup and for the military to cut iself off from allied powers and are opposed to the present democracy and the way that Gen. Kiyani is working with the government.

While each of them probably has some contacts from the military, it could be that their contacts may not be current military leaders. Also, it could be that their sources are actually retired military or ex-military who supported the Musharraf and Zia dictatorships and are filling their heads with false information rather than accurate information in attempt to disrupt the actual policies of the current military establishment.

If this is the case, it makes sense for them not to receive invitations to press briefings by the military brass. The military leadership would recognize them as working for elements that are opposing the actual plans and policies of Gen. Kiyani and his staff so they would refuse them any invitations.

None of these media personalities will reveal who their sources are, so we do not know if this is the case. It could be that sometimes their sources do not exist at all, but are simply invented in order to give their articles and talk shows some air of authority that is missing. But it seems very apparent that if they cannot even get an invitation to a public press briefing, they probably do not have sources that are very high up.

Was this a calculated snub? Is it because Ahmed Quraishi, Shireen Mazari, Shaheen Sehbai, and Shahid Masood do not represent the Army? Are Ahmed Quraishi, Shireen Mazari, Shaheen Sehbai, and Shahid Masood reflecting an old mindset from the past that the present establishment wants to distance itself from? Or does the military brass think that Ahmed Quraishi, Shireen Mazari, Shaheen Sehbai, and Shahid Masood are just too irrelevant to bother inviting them?

Whatever the answers are, one thing is made clear by the snub – Ahmed Quraishi, Shireen Mazari, Shaheen Sehbai, and Shahid Masood obviously do not speak for the military.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments »

Pakistani media and the romance with “Secret Map”

Monday, March 15th, 2010

This post from Anas Abbas the Let Us Build Pakistan blog contains a thorough rebuttal to the conspiracies that have been built around the “secret map” of the breakup of Pakistan.

Lately, Pakistani media has been propagating the perception that a secret map by U.S. military official Lt. Col Ralph Peters was issued in 2006  to safeguard Israeli security interest and to balkanize Pakistan.

This map has been quite frequently used by Zaid Hamid, journalist Ahmed Qureshi, DR Shireen Mazari, DR Shahid Masood and many others to highlight the American, Indian and Israeli conspiracy in balkanizing Pakistan. This eventually gave them a strong foundation to form their conspiracy theories in order to blame America and its allies rather than Taliban or local terrorists for the attacks in Pakistan.

The map is below:

According to these conspiracy theorists, the above map is a part of a secret plan devised to achieve Israeli security, American energy interests in Baluchistan and Indian long time desire for the disintegration of Pakistan.

Here is the link of a so called security report from Zaid Hamids’ website that is using this map as the best source of evidence against the so called enemies of Islam.

http://brasstacks.pk/pdfs/policypapers/PNACPolicyPaper.pdf

This second link is to a video where he  analyzes the map and highlights the Israeli security interest.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBPKBgRSH34

Also refer to this “DR”Shireen Mazari article where this map was again used as an evidence for Pakistan’s balkanization.

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Opinions/Columns/21-Oct-2009/Pakistan-trapped-in-the-US-game-plan

Rebuttal of this map hysteria:

Ralph Peters is a retired United States Army Lieutenant Colonel, novelist and respected expert on military and intelligence issues just like experts in Pakistan such as General Hamid Gul,  Mirza Aslem Baig or Talat Masood.

http://www.pritzkermilitarylibrary.org/events/2005/09-21-ralph-peters.jsp (About Ralph Peters)

Let us see how this map is in favour of Israeli security interest.

Before this, let me ask Zaid Hamid, his followers, and other conspiracy theorists the following questions:

•     Mr Zaid Hamid, et al, has anyone of you ever attended a math class in school?

•     What grades did you obtain in your technical subjects at University?

•     Do all of you have fake degrees just like the former minister for religious affairs in Pakistan (Amir Liaquat Husain)

Are all of you so blind in your misperceived patriotism and false pride that you have conveniently ignored a major section of this map by Ralph Peters?

Well my readers must be wondering why I am asking these questions

Hang on.

Can anyone tell me what a “map key” is?

I can find the best definition of map key here:

“A map key is a list of words or phrases or colors — usually within a box in the corner of the map — that usually explains the symbols that that are found on the map itself. Also referred to as a “legend.” (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_a_map_key)

This is the accepted definition of a map key. I doubt that the conspiracy theorists interpret the map of Ralph Peters through the key provided.

Below is the key extract from the above map.

Now what is this key telling us?

It’s indicating that in this map, those countries that are named in black are gaining territory and those in red are losing territory. There are also those countries shown in the map in grey that neither lose nor gain territory.

Now the most blatant error that Zaid Hamid and Co. are making here is to miss out a fundamental point about Israel’s name in Ralph Peters’ map (Remember red means losing territory)

Please see below the extract from the map showing Israel’s name in red which means the country is losing territory.

How come this map is in favour of Israel and how is it possible that this is anywhere successful in achieving Israeli security (by Zaid Hamid) when the map itself is showing Israel losing significant territory to Jordon and Lebanon?

In other words how is Israel achieving its so called goal to balkanize Pakistan by simultaneously balkanizing itself?

This is typical of conspiracy theorists like Zaid Hamid and Shireen Mazari that they distort every piece of information and manipulate it to serve the interest of their paranoia. In this map they are only highlighting the balkanization of Pakistan, conveniently ignoring Israeli territorial loss

Full marks should be given to the gullible followers of the conspiracy theorists who can’t even analyse a simple map key and instead choose to blindly follow their baseless diatribe against this map.

Now let’s look at this article from Ralph Peters which came along with this map in the United States Monthly Military magazine in the year 2006.

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2006/06/1833899/ (Please read it)

In this article titled “How a better Middle East would look” Ralph Peters carried out an experiment by hypothetically changing the borders of certain countries in the Middle East, South East Asia and Africa to address the concerns of the oppressed people in these restive regions. Some of these concerns are:

  • Baluchistan in Pakistan: the Baloch people have been deprived of their rights and fair share on local resources by the Pakistani Establishment. Not to mention the killings of thousands in army operations, extra judicial killings, kidnappings and mass tortures by the security forces which have added to the Balouchi peoples’ misery.
  • The Pasthun Durand line, which has divided the Pashtun tribes in two countries (Pakistan and Afghanistan), has been a source of unrest and hostility for decades.
  • Gaza, West Bank and Golan Heights: thousands of innocent Palestinians have been killed by the Israeli Security Forces through cluster bombs, chemical weapons, aerial bombardment and through brutal oppressive tactics like blocking the supply of electricity and water in the name of security concern by the Israeli forces. Also, many Israeli citizens have been a victim of suicide bombings and indiscriminate killings by Palestinian Movements.
  • Similar territorial issue’s in Iraqi region of Kurdistan which fought with Saddam regime on autonomy and has been a victim of a genocide called Al – Anfal campaign where Saddam Hussein’s regime massacred thousands of Kurds.

Ralph Peters map was merely just a recommendation based on his personal opinion rather than a clear directive of US Foreign Policy by Department of Defence or CENTCOM.

In fact the journal his article was published in has clearly stated its guidelines here:

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/custserv/guidelines/ (Please read the “who we are” section)

According to their website “Armed Forces journal” is a military magazine where retired or current US military officers share their opinions, analysis and reviews on military policy, defence issues, technology, logistics and tactics. It is senseless to think that this journal dictates US foreign policy.

If it is assumed that Armed Forces Journal dictates American foreign policy then why the same journal has an article extremely critical of (War on Terror) Iraq war and the Blackwater security company (Now known as XE).

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2007/10/2865287/ (Iraq War)

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2009/01/3889281/ (Trail for Blackwater agents)

Also if conspiracy theorists label Ralph Peter’s map as a doctrine of US foreign policy then they contradict their most cherished claim that Israel and Jews rule America. This is because according to Peters’ map Israel is ceding its territories by withdrawing to pre 1967 borders

Interestingly, HAMAS, a political organization classified as “terrorists” by the US, demands the same territorial retreat from Israel as shown in the above hypothetical map. This demand is also accepted by Palestinian Liberation Organization’s chief Mahmoud Abbas and was also the recommendation of the UN Security Council resolution 242.

Please refer to these references for HAMAS’s stance and UN Resolution:

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2008/04/2008615098393788.html

http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/240/94/IMG/NR024094.pdf?OpenElement

A similar article was recently released by a prominent Chinese based think-tank called China International Institute for Strategic Studies that caused massive uproar in the Indian media as the article advocated the balkanization of their country into different states based on several ethnicities.

However after mass hysteria in the media, the spokesperson of the Indian ministry of external affairs clarified to them that the article was representing only the personal opinion of an analyst rather than anything to do with the official Indo –Chinese bilateral relations.

Hence after carefully interpreting the Ralph peter’s map, we can safely reach the conclusion that the map was based on a hypothetical analysis, merely recommending that Pakistan, Israel and some other states give up territories in order to accommodate the demands of the oppressed people and to somehow bring peace in these restive regions.

If an opinion from an individual analyst, journalist or think tank is taken to represent the official policy of a country then how should one interpret former ISI’s chief General Hamid Gul statements in favour of balkanaizing India? Should this also be considered an official declaration by the Chief of Army Staff or the President of Pakistan?

Please refer to this many video of Hamid Gul legitimizing Indian balkanization

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3N-uoukDCD0&feature=related

Also refer to this Hamid Gul’s article:

http://generalhamidgul.com/pakarticles/18-pakistan/237-mein-bharat-kay-tukray-tukray-hota-dekhna-chahta-hoon

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Conspiracy Theories | 4 Comments »

Wishful Journalism (part 1): The End of the Zardari Government

Tuesday, March 9th, 2010

This is the first post in a series on ‘Wishful Journalism’ – an unfortunate practice that seems to be taking place more than actual reporting in some parts of the media.

There is a difference between wishing for something and reporting something. Unfortunately, this is too often lost on our journalists who prefer to actual reporting to only say something that they wish would come true even if it is not based in any facts. This is not journalism. It is only wishing.

From the day of his election as President, Shaheen Sehbai has been predicting the failure of President Zardari. A few months later, Sehbai continued his wishful thinking:

My considered opinion is that the present Zardari-led set-up will not last long as it has been structured on a wrong and distorted political premise as result of which the key players who have emerged as main power wielders were never in the picture, neither of Benazir Bhutto’s PPP, which actually got the votes and won the seats in the February 18 elections, nor anyone else. And these new players have failed to establish their political legitimacy and moral authority through their actions after coming to power.

Seven months later, Zardari was still in office. It seems the key players had more political legitimacy than perhaps Mr. Sehbai had hoped. Rather than admit his mistake, however, Mr. Sehbai simply wished harder.

The PPP and its Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani have now started talking in exceptionally confident and aggressive terms, the latest statement made to Geo TV’s Hamid Mir stating categorically that he was ready to create history – which in other words suggests that he was about to stage a political and moral coup against his own party co-chairperson, Mr Zardari, because his government had turned into a joke and Mr Zardari, exercising all the powers, had failed to come up with any successful initiative or policy.

Again, several months pass and, despite all of Mr. Sehbai’s wishes, Zardari remained in office. Again, rather than admit his mistake, Mr. Sehbai published more Wishful Journalism.

The State Department, specifically Hillary Clinton, has almost categorically declared that they are no longer interested in saving President Asif Ali Zardari if he falls in his current battle for survival, waging in the superior courts of Pakistan. But the message Pakistanis have been sent is to get over with the in-house turmoil and transition as quickly as possible to stabilise the democratic system and focus on the war on terror.

Once again, Mr. Sehbai’s wishes were denied.

Of course, Shaheen Sehbai is obviously not the only Wishful Journalist who has written about Zardari’s imminent removal as President. Dr. Shahid Masood wrote his wishes last October, saying that the Americans were going to remove Zardari from power.

After meeting top political and defence decision-makers here in the US capital, where I was invited by the National Defence University (NDU) for a two-day seminar on the anniversary of 9/11, I was told in unambiguous terms that a change in Pakistan was inevitable for US policy interests, although Washington does not intend to disrupt the system.

Several important Pakistani political players have also been conveyed the same message by the US political and defence establishment, including the MQM and recently the ANP, whose chief is travelling with President Asif Zardari in New York.

The Americans were only a new twist on an old wish, though. Several months before, it was the “minus one formula” that was secretly worked out between the Chief of Army Staff, PM Gilani, and PML-N leader Nawaz Sharif that was going to remove Zardari from power. Then there was the mid-term elections that were going to take place and re-shuffle the entire government. Or was it the NRO verdict that was going to remove Zardari from power?

Can you see the pattern?

‘Wishful Journalism’ is practiced by writing something that you wish is true. When it turns out not to be true, you do not admit your mistake and offer a correction. Rather, you wait a few months and then say your wish again. Maybe this time with a new twist. Instead of Army overthrowing Zardari, it is the Americans! Or the judiciary! Either way, it is still a wish based on no supporting facts. It is still not actual reporting, and not real analysis.

Making wishes is not the same as proper journalism. It is fine for me to wish to be rich and good looking, but no matter how many times I write an article saying I am rich and good looking, it does not make it come true. Actually, it is just a waste of everyone’s time.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 7 Comments »

Babble Media Mujahids

Sunday, January 3rd, 2010

Nadeem Paracha never fails to leave me laughing. Today’s Dawn includes his latest “Smoker’s Corner” about the media Talibans or what he calls “Babble Media Mujahids.” In his usual biting manner, Mr. Paracha’s witty satire really puts the ridiculous of some of the media talking heads into perspective. As infuriating as it is to read or listen to these individuals, if you sit back and look at them through the lens of Mr. Paracha’s satire, you really see them for the silly little people that they are. It is like the story of the Emporer’s Clothes. Everyone takes these chattering heads so seriously, but then Paracha comes around and says, “What are you people doing? These people are not wearing any clothes!” and the ridiculousness of the BMMs is finally easy for everyone to see.

(more…)

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

« Older Entries