Who will Bell the Bad, Fat Cats?

I want to begin by commending both the Fronter Post and Chowk for publishing this article. Other Pakistani newspapers have not yet published it and/or published any letter or opinion piece in favor or against it. This raises the question of the freedom of press. What it means?

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Dear Shaheen Sehbai:

You have raised the question of accountability of media at a time when every one in ``present morally, intellectually and financially depleted Pakistan`` is ``shouting from the roof top for accountability of every one else.`` Like you, I have also observed the growing plight of Pakistan, over a period of about fifty years, with considerable concern.

The present crisis in Pakistan is not a product of the last decade or so. Our entire political-economic and social history is full of backward and forward movements without a clear sense of direction and vision, where we have failed miserably in matters concerning the development of our economy, state and politics, and civil society. In his famous New Delhi speech, Najam Sethi argues that Pakistan is embroiled in six main crises. These crises are: (1) the crisis of identity and ideology; (2) the crisis of law, constitution and political system; (3) the crisis of economy; (4) the crisis of foreign policy; (5) the crisis of civil society; and (6) the crisis of national security (Sethi, May 1, 1999). Obviously, a state passing through these many crises is potentially a failed state. You yourself have said this somewhat mildly. Unfortunately, your focus is more upon the appearances than the root causes of our nation`s difficulties.

Early this year, somebody asked me to identify the best and the worst things about contemporary Pakistan. My answer was the ``freedom of press`` and the ``state institutions``, respectively. I think, it was the relative ``freedom of press`` in Pakistan that had enabled General Musharraf to come forward and bring an end to an autocratic-democratic regime. We, however, cannot be very optimistic about the transitional-reformist role of the present regime. We need to wait and see, very very cautiously.

I, however, suspect that the unintended consequences of your call for media accountability may curb not only the freedom of press but a general freedom of minds, bodies, and spirits. This is a lesson that our long and short history teaches us so far. Hence, it is not the media but our state institutions that need to be made accountable to the common people of Pakistan. With governmental accountability (using the power of a free press), a lot of problems in our civil society will slowly and gradually decrease significantly.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Zeemax Reply 7: I believe the Pakistani press did pick up on the person you have mentioned here, in the following article on January 6, in the NEWS:

``NRB chief, think tank member meet amid controversy

By Mariana Baabar

ISLAMABAD: As a member of the National Construction Bureau (NRB) is surrounded in controversy, Wednesday saw Chairman NRB, General (retd) Tanvir Naqvi go into a long meeting with Mohammad Ali Khan, member of NRB`s newly constructed Think Tank.

``The whole controversy is based on a report in the New York Times and today Mohammad Ali gave me a long explanation of what is essentially a very technical affair. I have asked him to put it in writing but for the time being it looks like a vicious news report. Let us see how this matter is settled,`` Naqvi told The News.

On Tuesday, the New York Times ran a story alleging that NRB member Mohammad Ali Khan had, while working as a broker on Wall Street, ran away with $3 million deposited with him by his clients. Warrants for his arrest had been issued last year, but by that time he had left the United States, the NYT story said.

``I deny these allegations as I have papers and documents to prove my innocence. A reputed law firm in New York will sue the New York Times for slander,`` Mohammad Ali told The News.

While the NRB is yet to get off the ground and names of members for more Think Tanks are being finalised, the soft spoken Chairman appears to have his hands full. ``Mohammad Ali did mention the incident in New York about his bank before he joined the NRB, but it was certainly not what the newspaper report is saying``, Naqvi replied, when asked if this had come as a surprise to him. (NEWS, Pakistan)

I think it is quite unfair to compare the hiring of this guy, to the kidnapping of Najam Sethi by Nawaz Sharif. It is good to see that the NRB is looking into these reports. I think the press, despite all its fault, along with the army, was the only institution to stand up to Nawaz Sharif`s goons and strong arm tactics.

Dear Ms. Sehbai,

I wish you would apply your sincere passions towards promoting greater freedom of speech, not less. Surely the Pakistani people have the right to decide for themselves whose articles they should read. The mindset reflected in your article leads to censorship, which leads to more corruption, injustice and hypocrisy, not less. This is the opposite of what I am sure you would like to see.

Your article is not well thought of.

There is definite yellow journalism, mostly by Owners of newspapers, who for profit or advertisement make policies. Like Nawai-Waqt getting hefty ads for sucking NS boot. Or more independent newspaper like ``Jang`` with a right tilt, and to remain in good books of every establishment.

My experience as a reader of Newspaper is that different journalist thought of differently regarding politics and journalism.

Like you have to differentiate between the sole crusader of Zia era meaning Irshad Ahmed Haqqani, with People like Mushahid Hussain.

Your bias of including Salahuddin a nonentity before Zia era suddenly rising to top with his pseudo Islamic, pro-establishment sensationalism, like condoning the rape of daughter of I think some Hayat at the hands of police in Islamic guise is also a form of yellow journalism, if you look carefully. More people like him, the notorious Altaf Hussain Qureshi of ``Urdu Digest``.

As far as journalism in Pakistan so far is concerned, with all the apathy of people, all the coersion of rulers, it has never been subdued and has a very great impact in improving the consciousness of people.

I don`t know about your credentials, and I cannot comment, but you have debased the people like Irshad Ahmed Haqqani, Minhaj Berna etc, who have contributed a lot.Not long ago NS Government demanded the removal from Jang staff of Haqqani and others.

I have never found in the writing of Irshad Ahmed Haqqani any hypocrisy. Why should he toe BB or NS line. Very apt columnist. Although I have never agreed to him joining Interim Government, but he did it in his full faith for the betterment of Paksitan.

Why have you not written against the owners who make policies and hire and fire, otherwise given the limitations our journalists are doing a remarkable job, which is reflected by their appropriateness regarding political situation and common consciousness.

Outside looking in, the only comment I would like to offer at this stage is that at least you have a free press in Pakistan. This is not to be laughed at and will hold you in good stead for the daysd to come.

I hope!!

CESSPOOLS:

Time and technology will finish off this cesspool. Their last stand will be in the telephone department where they will resist the growth of the internet. Above all the system will sooner or later find the system uneconomical and irrelevent.

That has been the fate of cesspools - large and small. Take the case of the art scene and the National College of Arts. The collapse of communism made intellectual the domination of Faiz family a thing of the past. Salima Hashmi has retired. Her memory only evokes the image of an emeritus madame.

I agree very much with the views expressed by Bilal Ahmad (#8) and TAhmad321 (#10) regarding the proposed accountability of the journalists. The circulation of mass media in Pakistan is very limited and moreover, opinions and regular column are read by even fewer people. In this sense, journalists have practically no influence on the significant issues of the day, e.g., the six important crisis as described in Bilal Ahmad`s post and attributed to Najam Sethi, as (1) the crisis of identity and ideology; (2) the crisis of law, constitution and political system; (3) the crisis of economy; (4) the crisis of foreign policy; (5) the crisis of civil society; and (6) the crisis of national security.

Mass media is a legimate business and the profits motives is natural in any business. This is one of the reason that in every society including US certain issues and stories get much less coverage or even ignored while less controversial and in-line with the advertisers get lot more coverage. Many investigative reportings are regularly cleared by the major advertisers before they can get to see the light of the day.

Some journalists try to develop a particular image, by usually stanging up for a cause as Dan Rather did during the Tiananman square demonstrations. Was it legitimate for a US journalist to be the flag bearer of US values and trying to score points? Similar to Dan Rather, most other journalists everywhere toe the government line more often than usual. Take the example of using the word ``Mujahideen`` for those afghan fighters, when fought against Russia and now part of the Northern alliance. No newspaper calls them mujahideen anymore, in-line with the Pakistani government policies. No newpaper or journalist dares call jihadis fighting in Kashmir, terrorists even if they have Sudaneese citizenship. Any deviation from official line will be bad for the business. All newspapers are carrying statements of one freed millitant Masood Azhar, who has accomplished nothing and should be charged, at least, for carrying fake passport. Yet he is being made a great hero and a soldier of God.

Most journalists reflect the state of a society. A corrupt society will have more pro-government journalists. Accountability should be carried out for any one who has broken a law e.g., by accepting plots, gifts or bribes. But any such move on the part of present government will not be fair as their record reveals so far. It will be used to curb the freedom of expression more than any meaningful accountability.

My last question deals with the definition of journalist. A person writing op-ed pieces once in a while can not be considered a journalist. A journalist is one who is being paid for his/ her professional work. If a journalist does not have a degree in Journalism then what qualifies one to be called a journalist? Is it something similar to a mullah? i.e., if a sizable population accepts one to be journalist, he/ she is one. If Altaf Gohar or Gen. Arif are being paid for their writings then they are acting as journalists, otherwise not worth discussing. I wish for continued freedom of press in Pakistan.

Good for you Shaheen Sehbai! Especially for asking that question of General Arif (never understood why so many Pakistani people think the military is a god send).

Good honest journalism is still alive and well in Pakistan.

Panini

FAT CATS - REFLECTIONS:

- In regard to Mushahid Hussain - He has been suspected of being an ISI plant from day one and known to have been paid by Libyan intelligence services. He attempts to connect with Iran were probably inspired by agencies outside the country and he used to opportunity to establish bonafides. He advisory role during Mr. Sharif`s tenure is also suspect. As his gluttony progressed so decline his mental faculties that made him think that the regime was invincible and they get could get away with everything and they would win the simmering conflict with the military.

- As far as the corrupt press is concerned they were called in by Musharraf a fews ago and in so many words told that that they would be taken care of. The latter meaning that money would be paid for keeping public opinion on the regime`s side. The anti private sector propaganda would continue and the public accountability process would not include inconvenient digressions into the loot by generals and admirals and air marhals- both serving and retired.

- In regard to questioning of General Arif about the rape of democracy I am more inclined to believe that this kind of bullet head and duffer should be asked to explain where he has acquired such vast wealth on an army officer`s pay. He should be at a minimum asked to inventorize his real estate and gold watches and make appropriate disclosures. At least Musharraf has provide this kind of list. He was a political general and no where near the Lt. Gen. Gul Hassan (an authentic

hero and man of great class) image that these rank cowards like to portray.

- The armed forces have quite a budget for PR and molding of public opinion is deemed to be an operational necessity. There is not a day that goes by without the press providing information on Indian weapons programs and advances in innovative defense technology. The press has never commented that such technological advances require great investment in education and manpower and the social structure of this failed state can not support such programs even if the will was there. Probably the gang of four that runs the country does not have the mind to organise an orderly retreat in conventional forces and spending and in lieu invest in manpower, science and technology and therefore longterm security. The period in between would be a dangerous nervous time but with resolution things can be managed.

Interesting piece.

I am reminded of the setting in Xenophon`s Tyrannicus(the right spelling I hope). It features a dialogue between Heiro the Tyrant, and an intellectual. The Tyrant(an illegitimate ruler in terms of ancient Greek political lingo, who may or may not be as brutal as Pinochet or Ziaul Haq), tells the intellectual how insecure and depressing his work makes him feel. The latter,

eventually ends up encouraging the Tyrant to stay at his post, and to consider using the power at his disposal for the benefit of his subjects, which will ease his insecurity, and make him feel better.

Xenophon used this dialogue to illustrate the ambiguous relationship between intellectuals and those in power. How can an intellectual survive, and earn a living, if s/he insists on speaking the truth to power? This is the question which all of us need to answer, as we deal with the dilemmas faced in different ways by people whose conduct has been discussed by Sehbai Sahib. Like,

Xenophon`s intellectual, he ends up suggesting that the Tyrant (State) hold the intellectuals accountable, at least regarding their financial dealings.

Whatever, the state may or may not do, people who make their living through the use of words, cannot avoid dealing with this problem. Our illustrious dissident poet Habib Jalib helplessly watched his child die due to his inability to buy medicine for him. On the other hand, people like left-libertarian writer I.F. Stone survived even when they were shunned by their mainstream colleagues during the Cold War, as there were enough people in society to buy his self-produced weekly magazine. Crushing poverty, and low levels of literacy make Pakistani intellectuals more vulnerable to the pressure of big money and the state. What would I.F. Stone had done, had he been living and working in Pakistan? Some U.S. intellectuals were driven to suicide during the period of Macarthiest purges.

Finally, Sehbai Sahib asumes that there is an honourable tradition of mainstream journalism in at least some parts of our planet. I would beg to disagree. Chamchgeeri is the norm everywhere. Only

dissidents have been honourable journalists,and they have always paid a heavy price for speaking the truth to power.

In response to Tariq (Reply # 21)

Dear Tariq:

In response to Mr. Shaheen Sehbai`s article, Mr. Husain Haqqani clarified his position by identifying himself as a media advocate. Haqqani distinguishes between journalists with hidden agendas and media advocates. According to him, ``The term `hidden agenda` presupposes concealment of intent. For example, a journalist conceals his political or other commitments and thereby hides his objective of promoting a cause or interest. A media advocate, on the other hand, is up front about his/her advocacy function by declaring publicly who or what he/she supports.`` Although this is an interesting analytical distinction, these two categories of journalists are not mutually exclusive. I asked Haqqani to explain his position about the issue of mutually exclusivity. He chose not to answer my question. I asked the same question to Sehbai. He has also chosen to maintain silence about it. Perhaps my question has no real worth or perhaps our journalists are not used to free and critical exchange with their readers. However, in my post to Sehbai, I maintained that: ``The answer of this question, . . . needs to be informed by the hard reality of everyday life in Pakistan.`` Both Haqqani and Sehbai have preferred not to avail the opportunity to provide a sense of such a reality vis a vis journalism in Pakistan.

I am unable to understand why Sehbai`s article has failed to publish in any major Pakistani newspapers, except the Frontier Post. Although I don`t support Sehbai`s approach for the accountability of the journalists, a relative indifference of the journalist community toward his article suggests an element of arrogance. The journalists should be accountable to themselves and their readership, but they should be able to write fearlessly and any attempt to curb the freedom of press must be opposed vehemently.

I think, your notion of Chamchageeri is well taken for countries like Pakistan. However, it cannot and should not be over-generalized. Here I want to suggest a distinction between those journalist who support the status quo and those who don`t (you may call them progressives). Chamchgeers are definitely those who always support the status quo with an internal desire to benefit from their support. Those who don`t fall in this category but generally support the status quo are weak, simplistic, uncritical, indifferent, or apolitical. Pakistani journalists fall in a wide variety of categories from the pole of Chamchageers to the pole of staunch progressives. Realistically, an overwhelming majority of them (should) fall somewhere in the middle. Life definitely becomes a little hard if you move toward the pole of progressivism. In Pakistan (at least), it becomes considerably unbearable if your progressivism starts making difficulties for other people, particularly the ruling elite in their heyday.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Hi Bilal

Nice to be able to talk to you once again.

I do not disagree with anything that you have said. You are right. Journalists come in many shades. Even within the mainstream media, there are those who concientiously subscribe to a particular conception of ``national interests``,

and are not consciously behaving in an opportunistic manner when they uphold it, and also enrich themselves in the process.

I do not believe that journalists in Pakistan are better or worse than those in other countries in this regard. In fact, given the greater risks faced by them, it would be fair to say that many are quite courageous. Sometime ago, the veteran US journalist who had edited the Washington Post had written his autobiography. He boasted about his close personal relations with the US political elites. Another veteran, gave his autobiography the title,``Making IT``. More important, coverage of issues is extremely business friendly. The interest of big business is upheld as the general interest of society. Workers, farmers, teachers, are portrayed as ``special interests``, with selfish motivations. I was struck by the account in the NYT of the repeal of the laws to prevent the emrgence of monopoles in insurance and finance which had been enacted in the afterath of the economic collapse of the 1930s. It described the close proximity of corporate lobbiests to the White House and the congressional actors as something natural, and to be taken foregranted. This is in contrast to the fuss made about politicians who are believed to have the support of trade unions. I could go on and on. Then there are the explicitly racist columnists, A M Rosenthal and William Safire.

Okay, take care,

tariq

In response to Tariq (Reply #: 23)

Dear Tariq:

It is nice that you are on the Chowk once again. Last time, we talked about the antisystemic social movements (I just checked my archives).

You are right that some of our journalists are very courageous. The American setup despite its greatness has many serious flaws. Pakistani journalism is relatively young. It lacks experience, maturity, and the support of common people. Our journalist need to play a more honest role in our national development (not simple recourse to hidden or overt pleas for patriotism, loyalty, etc.). Like our politicians, they need to come to the people without an element of arrogance.

Recently Umair posted a piece by Kuldip Nayyar on one of Chowk forum, reproducing it from the Nation, a Lahore-based newspaper. Somebody (perhaps ``concerned``) saw another version of the same article in an Indian newspaper. A similar discrepancy was observed for another article of Kuldip Nayyar. In complaining, concerned wrote: ``the glorious tradition continues....`` He added: ``. . . all the damaging references to Pakistan [sic] have been deleted``; ``even the title of the original article has been changed``; and ``is `the nation` a real newspaper?`` Evidently, the credibility of the Nation is at stake. I am not a journalist, in Sehbai`s sense. However, I offered the following plausible reasons for this discrepancy:

(1) Nayyar is himself sending different versions of his article to different newspapers.

(2) The Nation has edited Nayyar`s articles with his consent.

(3) The Nation has edited without Nayyar`s consent, and Nayyar does not want to make a big deal about it.

(4) The Nation has published Nayyar`s articles without his permission, and Nayyar does not want to make a big deal about it

I think, it is the responsibility of our professional journalists and newspapers to inform the common people about the way newspaper industry works. What are your views about this issue?

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Hello Bilal

The Nayyar situation is interesting. We should try to ask him about it. Does he know that his

article is being censored by The Nation? If he does, does he plan to do anything about it?

Nayyar is among the few mainstream journalists in

India who suport peace and friendship with Pakistan. So it is entirely possible that he is

happy to reach a section of Pakistani readers through The Nation, who are generally accustomed

to reading hostile material about India. As a price for this access to Pakistani readers, he might be prepared to tolerate some censorship. He probably gets paid for his articles too. I don`t

know how important that consideration is to him. He is very widely published, and it is unlikely that financial considerations would affect his position in this regard.

As we are discussing Kuldip Nayyar, I am tempted to make another observation regarding the broader issues under discussion here. Nayyar is a very prominent intellectual in India, and enjoys full citizenship rights. He can frankly express his opinion. I had hoped that he would use his position to support the right of the people of Kashmir to engage in peaceful advocacy for self-determination. He has not done so. Instead, he has berated the Hurriyet Conference for demanding that foreign observers be present in Kashmir during elections, on the ground that a sovereign state would never agree to this kind of demand. Nayyar`s voluntary adherence to a narrow conception of national interests is illustrative of the general conduct of mainstream profesional journalists all over thw world. In India too, it is only some human rights activists and left wing intellectuals who are politically marginalised, who support the right of Kashmiris to engage in discourses demanding independence. The only honourable exception that I am aware of is veteran

social democrat Balraj Puri, who has cautiously argued that the idea of permitting peaceful advocacy of independence should be seriously considered.

Best wishes

tariq

Your suggestion Mr. Sehbai befits you. Either Newspapers should say that they agree with the columnist like Husain Haqqani or stop thrusting them on public.

I as a common man can only laugh at your novice. As a news paper reader, I read the column of Mushtaq Qureshi an extreme rightist, with moderate Irshad Ahmed Haqqani, with pro-left Hasan Ali Shahzeb. Articles by N.D.Khan of peoples party, Nafees Siqqiqui, Maqbool Ahmed, some MQM leaders including Altaf Hussain, some Muslim League leaders, some old guard like Aslam Baig and Hammed Gul to name a few. And we form our opinion.Does the newpapers subscribe to all these different opposing views.

Are you suggesting that Newspaper should make a certain policy regarding its orientation and publish accoding to that orientation. This was precisely I was saying before that Inspite of policies of Newspaper owners our journalism is much better than what might be expected in our society. I have found the articles of Husain Haqqani as very informative. And help me to see the situation from his perspective.

If he was reporting like some non media advocate journalist do. Unauthenticated news and planted news or news to blackmail certain persons for personal gains.

We should not forget that our society is a very pluralistic society, with many many streams. The so called intellectuals of higher class has almost no influence on common man except in their own circles (reminds me of communist movements in Pakistan). The people you are trying to say that their articles should not be published only reflect your brought up in a coercive culture which cannot tolerate opposing or even a different point of view.

Do you want to thrust your opinion on us.