War on Terror and Electronic Media of Pakistan

There has been lot of discussion in the electronic media whether it is free or is still under the shackles of draconian measures like PEMRA Ordinance etc. What can be gathered from this discussion is that for both the parties (electronic media and government) the term freedom means two totally different things, and both stand at two totally different planes with no point of convergence except at not conveying the truth. When media speaks about freedom and objects about Government’s interference, it basically wants unbound and unqualified access to the events, which it then wants to present again in the manner that is not underpinned by any interference from Government side. On the other hand when Government talks about media freedom and its attempt to regulate it, it is only concerned with media not meddling in the perceived national interests of country. What is conspicuously missing is the urge to present the unadulterated objective truth from the side of media and an urge to regulate the media from the Government side where regulatory objectives should be objectivity and professional ethical framework. Media does it because either it is incompetent to present it or if it does so will fall out with the general public. Government does it because for it truth is a sacrificial commodity when it weighs it against the sanctity of its perceived national interests, which nowadays include the continuation of perhaps the most hated person in the office of President.

The lack of any real professional ethical framework has rendered our electronic media in the hands of incompetent persons who lack the ability to present the current events in our country in its proper environmental context. This incompetence is at its zenith when it comes to talk shows regarding ‘war on terror’ as what is presented in it is nothing but some popularly accepted notions and no effort is made by the so called experts to put these notions under the larger acceptable framework of international dealings between the sovereign states. In rare cases when the question of sovereignty is raised, only one side (sovereignty of Pakistan) is presented distorting the whole view sacrificing the objectivity, which should be the goal of news presenters or anchor persons of popular TV shows. It seems that instead of pursuing the objective of presenting the reality in its proper frame of reference, these presenters fall prey to the popular slogans, and subsequently act in reinforcing the popular and faulty point of view of masses, which has taken us to the verge of disaster instead of bending the public opinion to the objective ground realities. The million dollar question here is that: why do they do it? There are only two takes on this issue i.e. a) due to gross incompetence or b) because of urge of becoming the most popular in the wake of so many channels. Whatever it is, I leave the answer to this question to the readers.

Due to this phenomenon of not holding to objective truth, we as a nation are still not able to decide whether the war on terror is our war or are we fighting someone else’s war at our own peril. Frankly, the answer to this question is as easy as telling the difference between one’s right hand from left hand provided that the framework of what is left and right, and what is a hand is put rightly in place. The framework of ‘war on terror’ as it concerns Pakistan can be enumerated in following points, and these are the points that needs to asserted by these popular media persons if they want the objective truth to be known to the nation. Otherwise the situation can be summed up by a popular Urdu verse that, “her shaakh per ulloo baitha hay/anjaam e gulistan kiya hoga”.

- A country has borders out of which neither it nor any of its citizens have any authority to meddle with unless allowed by the guest country. If it does then the country in whose borders it interferes has the full right to do the same. Pakistan is a country, and so is Afghanistan.

- Whatever Government in Afghanistan does is none of the business of Pakistan unless and until it does not interfere in Pakistan. The question that NATO or ISAF are occupying forces or not is to be decided by Afghans and not by anyone in Pakistan. If Afghans in Pakistan are interfering in Afghanistan using Pakistan as base then it is responsibility of Pakistan not to allow it and throw them out of Pakistan.

- Every country has the responsibility to make sure that the use of force within its borders rests only with its own state operated legitimate forces. Only the legitimate and state ordained institutions are authorized to use the force. If there is any use of force by anyone which is not legitimate security forces, then this is failure of the state and responsibility of this failure rests on state and no one else.

- Whatever trans-border world view of Islam may be, it is always subject to international covenants entered into with other sovereign powers. So, Islam does recognize borders. Case in point is the treaty of Hudaibya between Prophet (P.B.U.H) and Quraish of Makkah where it was agreed that, “If any one from the Quraish came to the Muslims and was converted to Islam he was to be returned to the Quraish. On the other hand, if a Muslim sought refuge with the Quraish, he was not to be delivered to the Muslims.” Every Islamic country is bound by international law as part of its UN membership, and has the responsibility of not interfering in other countries, even when Muslims in that country are subject to hardships. So, the militants’ point of view that they do not recognize border between Afghanistan and Pakistan as the concept of borders is un Islamic is totally wrong and baseless. The only recourse is through the UN as this is what every Islamic country has agreed to when becoming member of UN.

- The use of force against anyone who is outside the border of the country rests only and only with the state, and that needs to be done under compelling circumstances by state and state only and not by anyone with the gun or resources.

- One cannot ask others to respect its sovereignty unless it respects the sovereignty of others. Hence, the question that our pride as a nation is at stake cannot be raised in case of ISAF attack within Pakistan’s border unless we make sure that no one interferes in Afghanistan from our side. We cannot avoid our responsibility and raise the question of our sovereignty without linking the both.

The above points need constant propagation for the objective analysis of our role in ‘war on terror’. The sad part of the whole state of affairs in Pakistan is that not only the media of Pakistan but our popular politicians are not able to come in grip with it. Unless this happens, we will be regarded as a confused lot and laughing stock of the world as we are now, and the truth is that we deserve it by all means.