PKPolitics Discuss » Current Issues

Is Media Freedom a Cruel Hoax?

(13 posts)
  1. In 2009, Kamran Shafi’s home was strafed with gunfire after he was warned not to report about security agencies. In 2010, Umar Cheema was abducted and tortured. Umar Cheema was lucky – he survived.

    In 2011, Saleem Shahzad was abducted and tortured to death, his body dumped on a canal bank in Mandi Bahauddin.
    None of the perpetrators of these attacks have been caught, but in each case suspicion has fallen on members of national agencies. In the latest incident involving Saleem Shahzad, Senior Researcher Human Rights Watch Ali Dayan Hasan again suspects the invisible hand of security agencies.

    Human Rights Watch says it was able to establish that Shahzad was being held by the ISI. “We were informed through reliable interlocutors that he was detained by the ISI,” says Hasan. Those interlocutors, he adds, had received direct confirmation from the agency that it was detaining Shahzad. In any case, Hasan says, “in a high-security zone like Islamabad, it is only the ISI that can effect the disappearance of man and his car without a trace.”

    Human Rights Watch was also told that Shahzad was supposed to return home on Monday night. “The relevant people were informed that his telephone would be switched on first, enabling him to communicate with his family,” says Hasan. “They were told that he would return home soon after.” But by 1 a.m. on Tuesday morning, Shahzad had still not been heard from. At that point, Hasan recalled that Shahzad had sent him an e-mail on Oct. 18, 2010, that was to be released in the event of his disappearance.

    At the time, says Hasan, he was “fairly sure that sooner or later something was going to happen.” Human Rights Watch says it has made repeated attempts to contact Pakistan’s government and establish Shahzad’s whereabouts, but has received no response.
    Nor can this suspicion be considered as part of a political agenda of one media group against the government since each of these journalists worked for different media groups. The only thing linking them was their willingness to investigate and report on the workings of the agencies.

    Intelligence agencies have long been considered to use media as puppets in internal battles and for shaping public opinion about national issues, and suspicions about involvement in vote rigging and supporting political parties to influence the national direction have also been long held. Like the case of abduction and torture of Umar Cheema, though, investigations into these suspicions always result in a dead end.

    As the nation has begun to demand answers related to issues of national importance including the Abbottabad case and the attack on our naval base in Karachi, confusion has been reigning supreme in the media. From bizarre and condradictory headlines on the front page of major newspapers, to the spread of conspiracy theories from propaganda rings associated with ex-officials.

    Now that Saleem Shahzad has had his life stolen, the question has moved to the forefront of people’s minds, and the eyes of the world are focused on the national intelligence agencies. However, it should be noted that as yet other than anecdotal evidence and suspicions, there has not been proof made of the intelligence agencies being responsible.

    But whether or not agencies are responsible, the current sentiments point to an important quesiton – Can the media be truly free if there is a fear that journalists live under threat for reporting on sensitive topics?

    An independent investigation must be carried out not only to obtain justice for Salmaan Shahzad which is of course the first priority, but also to lift the weight of uncertainty about safety for journalists in the country. If national agencies are not involved, that needs to be shown by more than only the word of the agencies themselves. If the agencies are not responsible, they need to be cleared so that journalists can continue their work without being silenced by the “chilling effect” of living under the fear of harm.

    On the other hand, if some member of a national agency acting either under orders or as a rogue element has been harassing and threatening journalists, these should be exposed and removed from their positions so that the agencies can no longer be considered a threat to media freedom.

    Whoever was responsible for the death of Saleem Shahzad, the abduction of Umar Cheema, the shooting at Kamran Shafi house – these individuals cannot continue to go unknown if we are to truly have a free and independent media.

    Media freedom requires more than spreading sensational rumours and slandering politicians. If certain holy cows remain off limits to honest and objective reporting, then media freedom is nothing but a cruel hoax.
    http://pakistanmediawatch.com/

    Posted 11 months ago on 06 Jun 2011 14:26 #
  2. Mirza Sahib, I don't know who killed Saleem Shahzad or why. After all, nothing of what he said could not have been served up by the fertile imaginations of world bloggers already. Most of what journalists or their cousins the bloggers put forward are not backed up any solid proof as such. The MSM are one of the most dangerous groups around and are never submitted to any laws of accountability. So whatever they say, should always be taken with a grain of salt.

    After that preamble, the real reason I'm writing here: the Human Rights Watch and their statements. The NGOs are another group of people never held accountable for anything, Yet we quote them as though they were full of knowledge and truth. Now look at this paragraph from the above article:

    "Human Rights Watch says it was able to establish that Shahzad was being held by the ISI. “We were informed through reliable interlocutors that he was detained by the ISI,” says Hasan. Those interlocutors, he adds, had received direct confirmation from the agency that it was detaining Shahzad. In any case, Hasan says, “in a high-security zone like Islamabad, it is only the ISI that can effect the disappearance of man and his car without a trace.”

    Now who on earth are these "reliable interlocutors"? We are supposed to take their word for it, are we? Just like that? Yes, just like that, I suppose. The final sentence is again pure supposition. And again, we are supposed to swallow it without further ado. Again, I repeat, I don't know who did or did not kill Saleem Shazad. But what I do know is I, for one, should be most reluctant to take the word of Human Rights Watch for anything at all.

    Posted 11 months ago on 06 Jun 2011 15:55 #
  3. Thanks Mirza Sahib, for your honest opinion on this matter. We all should be wary of suppositions when and where ever they are being slotted in by media as facts fed to them by NGO's or 'reliable interlocutors'..

    Posted 11 months ago on 06 Jun 2011 16:07 #
  4. Mirza Sahib, many thanks to you in return for your understanding that I wasn't shooting down the article for the sake of fun. But you gave the warning I wished to sound clearer expression than I should have managed myself.

    Posted 11 months ago on 06 Jun 2011 16:53 #
  5. aftab arif
    Member

    That's what happens when you have a wishy-washy attitude too reigning in crime, upholding the law should be done as though your life depends on it but in our beloved homeland in many cases the law upholders are complicit in law breaking.

    Journalist will naturally feel scared when incidents happen like the Killing of SS and other crimes against the journalist community. I wonder if it is at all possible to have the identities of certain type of reporters anonymous.

    Posted 11 months ago on 06 Jun 2011 17:38 #
  6. @aftab
    Brother, a detailed account is up (my post) for my brothers to discuss this shortfall, in detail.

    Posted 11 months ago on 06 Jun 2011 21:25 #
  7. Our blogging communities should be active against such incidents. Rogue elements from any of the national agencies should be exposed. We should also demand removal of such elements from their positions.

    Posted 11 months ago on 07 Jun 2011 12:54 #
  8. aftab arif
    Member

    Mirza G in the current climate i believe the ISI or any rogue element of the said agency will not be pulled up, so expecting anything positive from the current civilian estbalishment will be like waiting for pigs to start flying.

    Having said that maybe we can provide space for these journalists who risk they lives and they stories never get printed, can be posted here as anonymous and allow us to discern what is a true story or factually incorrect.

    Posted 11 months ago on 07 Jun 2011 13:05 #
  9. @aftab
    A nice idea; My full support for journalists who never get published due to risks involved. Pkpdiscuss is open for such journalists.

    Posted 11 months ago on 07 Jun 2011 13:13 #
  10. Silencing Pakistan

    Just before moving back to Pakistan a year and a half ago, I wrote a short story called “A Beheading”. It was about the imaginary kidnapping and beheading of a nameless Pakistani writer, told from that doomed and terrified man’s own point of view. I wrote it not because such events are commonplace in Pakistan, or typical of life in our country. I wrote it because it expressed a pernicious fear, a fear that gives rise to self-censorship. I thought in writing it I would become, if not braver, then at least more questioning of my silences and those of others.

    I’ve long tried to be an optimist about Pakistan. The reason isn’t that I believe things here are fine. They’re a mess. But I’ve always believed our mess is solvable.

    My own set of solutions would include (as a top 10): Raising our shamefully low tax revenues; reducing the defence budget (especially money spent on shiny, imported and easily embargoed toys like F-16s); increasing the development budget (education, water and electricity, in particular); beefing up the police and lower courts; cracking down much harder on militants; phasing out American (and ideally all) aid; making more of an effort to pursue peace with India (not easy, I know); actively campaigning to end foreign meddling in Afghanistan (including our own); giving more power to the provinces; refocusing judicial reform on speedy and unbiased justice for all, rather than on the balance of power in Islamabad; and forcing political parties to become internally democratic.

    Many reasonable Pakistanis might disagree with me over items on this list. Some of what I advocate could well be ill-considered. But nothing on my list cannot be done. None of it is impossible or beyond Pakistan’s capabilities. Hence, my optimism doesn’t require me to reject reality.

    My optimism does, however, require that Pakistanis be somewhat free to speak. Only by expressing themselves can Pakistanis articulate their own lists of national priorities, debate them and call for them to be implemented. When a speeding train is hurtling down the wrong track towards a cliff, optimism lies in the hope that passengers will raise an alarm in time for a conductor to pull the brake.

    Silence kills that hope. It kills optimism.

    And lethal efforts are under way to spread silence in Pakistan.

    Half a year after I moved back, over 200 people were killed or wounded in simultaneous attacks on Ahmadis in Lahore. Few politicians openly condemned the massacre. The message was clear: Those deemed to be non-Muslims can be silenced in Pakistan. Five per cent of our fellow citizens will be denied their voice.

    A little over a year after my return, Punjab Governor Salmaan Taseer was gunned down, followed weeks later by Minorities Minister Shahbaz Bhatti. Again, public condemnations were limited. And again, the message was clear: Those who seek to change laws in ways deemed to be non-Muslim can be silenced in Pakistan. The substantial swathe of Pakistanis who are socially liberal (a tenth of our population? a fifth? a third?) will be denied their voice.

    And now, a year and a half after my return, journalist Saleem Shahzad has been assassinated. He was tortured, his body left in a canal. We do not know who killed him. But we do know what he wrote in the Asia Times on May 27: That the Pakistan Navy faces infiltration by al Qaeda sympathisers, that it has purged some of these elements, that the attack on PNS Mehran was in retribution for these purges and that it was carried out with insider help.

    Days later, he was dead.

    What message is sent by killing a man who writes such things? Its style represents a shift. This is a communication confident (or desperate) enough to no longer seek to cloak itself in a language of Muslim and non-Muslim, of sectarian groups or of religious symbols. And its substance appears to be the following: Those who speak of sensitive security matters can be silenced in Pakistan. Hereafter, it suggests, every Pakistani will be denied their voice.

    For we all speak of sensitive security matters. We speak of drones and India and terrorists and Abbottabad and America and nukes. We do it all the time. As well we should: We are being slaughtered in our thousands, over 30,000 Pakistanis in the last decade alone, and our country is grievously undermined by violence. We know things must change. And we need our journalists to help us figure out how, by telling us, underneath all the conspiracy theories and secrecy, what is actually going on.

    The challenges facing Pakistan require a citizenry that is more engaged with security policy, not less, and a security establishment that is more open with and responsive to its citizenry, not less. The yawning gap between our people and our policies has allowed self-destructiveness to fester. It has made our Pakistan a blood-drenched contradiction: Taking aid, hating dependency; cooperating with drone strikes, proclaiming sovereignty; buying warplanes, drowning in floods.

    We do not have a security state, we have an insecurity state.

    We will only get better if we close this gap, and we will only close this gap if we speak. So we must urgently ask why journalists who write on security issues are dying, and who is killing them. We must demand that it stop. We must reject an enforced national silence that encourages our country to continue on its present trajectory, ever downhill, ever faster, towards the cliff, to the despair of those of us who, despite everything, still love Pakistan, and to the misfortune of all who call this wounded land of tremendous potential home.

    We must also persevere in looking for reasons for optimism. They exist. Courageous journalists are raising their voices. The media is disseminating information ever more widely. It may be that the balance of power in our state is finally, slowly, shifting towards our people. The outcome is uncertain, but silencing Pakistan has yet to succeed.

    Published in The Express Tribune, June 4<sup>th</sup>, 2011.
    Source:http://tribune.com.pk/story/181760/silencing-pakistan/

    Posted 11 months ago on 07 Jun 2011 20:10 #
  11. Here we go again, running down Pakistan because we find nothing better to do. The media in Pakistan is one of the few pluses we do have at the moment. Claiming that they are not free enough or not courageous enough to make their voice heard is contrary to the facts. And if our media are not doing enough, what to say of the media the world over, the highest paid journalists in the world, whose only job seems to be to serve as a mouthpiece of their various governments?

    Also, please to note, not all of us are convinced the ISI did away with Saleem Shahzad because he was a danger to them. Saleem Shahzad had already said whatever he had to say. To go and kill him once the "revelations" had been made seems to be more of a mafia act than the act of an intelligence agency.

    Posted 11 months ago on 07 Jun 2011 21:15 #
  12. There are many people who already talk against army and ISI what was so special about Saleem Shahzad that army killed him. I don't think it was army or isi.

    Posted 11 months ago on 07 Jun 2011 21:34 #
  13. Good Life, I'm glad I gain some support for an unpopular position. Thanks.

    Posted 11 months ago on 07 Jun 2011 22:04 #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.