Talat Hussain slaps Shaheen Sehbai and Shahid Masood

Frequently in their TV appearances (on Geo TV) and newspaper columns (in Jang and The News), agents of anti-democracy establishment, e.g. Shaheen Sehbai, Dr Shahid Masood, Ansar Abbasi and their cronies, have openly or implicitly invited General Kayani to intervene into political affairs of the country in an ultra-constitutional manner.

In the following op-ed, Talat Hussain condemns all such elements who are trying to derail democracy in Pakistan by encouraging or supporting military intervention into political affairs of the country. Talat Hussain requests General Kayani to pay no heed to such illegitimate voices.

We at Let us build Pakistan agree with Talat Hussain's analysis, and request Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry to direct police to arrest all such so-called journalists (black sheep in the journalist community) and also their ruthless owners, and award maximum exemplary punishment to them under the Article 6 of Pakistan's constitution.
..

Read more...

Geo TV, reality show and the death of a young Pakistani man.

Saad Khan, a young Pakistani man took part in a reality show sponsored by a multinational company earlier this summer; he was flown to Thailand for filming what he must have thought would be the opportunity of a lifetime.

The show was planned for a large media group in Pakistan (Geo TV); the person's family was never adequately compensated, the media producers were offered an NRO by the Jang Group / Geo TV; and the news of this death was censored by the media mafia in Pakistan.

Here is an excerpt from an op-ed on Pakistani media's ruthless commercial orientation by Bina Shah.


Think ‘American Idol’, ‘The Apprentice’, ‘Fear Factor’: seemingly ordinary people are thrust into highly sensationalised but tightly controlled versions of real life, given ‘challenges’ or ‘tasks’ to overcome, and punished or rewarded for their performance. Audiences at home are invited to vote for the participants, and the result is a complete blurring of the lines between reality and fiction. Contestants may be asked to set up a business in one week, swap families for a month, or eat locusts and cockroaches in order to win a competition for their team. The contestant is a willing participant in his or her own humiliation for prize money, but it’s the advertisers who hand over the real money in this game.

Given how exciting life already is in Pakistan, you’d think we’d be immune to this kind of gimmickry. But our media thinks otherwise. In order to keep up with the worldwide trend and secure the accompanying advertising profits, local channels have begun to produce a slew of reality shows in the last few years, some ridiculous, others simply horrifying.

One example on the worse end of the scale is a show called ‘Living on the Edge,’ which appears on a Pakistani music channel and whose clips are freely available on YouTube. For the not-so-staggering amount of Rs 1,000, young men and women flock to the show’s auditions and beg to be allowed to perform a ‘dare’ while a sociopathic host screams abuse at the would-be contestants, especially women who dare to come dressed in western clothes or speak English. One unfortunate man, in his quest for fame, was filmed pushing a safety pin through his lower lip, while his hapless companion called his mother on air and begged permission to repeat the stunt.

This cringe worthy parade can be seen as mindless entertainment: the sardonic grin of the presenter as he screams ‘Rejected’, the stunned looks of disbelief on the contestants’ faces, the drama of security being called to drag away the troublemakers who can’t accept failure, all overshadow the actual performing of the ‘dare’ itself. But you’ve only got to look at the legions of youngsters desperate for a taste of fame to realise that this is one of the most unhealthy trends in an already sensationalist media with little to no standards of quality, taste, or safety. What exactly does this say about the emotional health of vulnerable young people? Where are the media standards, the watchdogs to make sure that our children are not being exploited by money-hungry producers and advertisers?

And let’s not forget that things can go horribly wrong. Saad Khan, a young Pakistani man took part in a reality show sponsored by a multinational company earlier this summer; he was flown to Thailand for filming what he must have thought would be the opportunity of a lifetime. One of the challenges thought up by the show’s creators was an underwater challenge, where contestants were asked to cross a waist-deep expanse of water while lugging a backpack filled with weights. Unfortunately, the 32-year-old man, a father of four and reputed to be an excellent swimmer, drowned in his attempt to perform the stunt successfully.

Filming was halted while the Thai authorities conducted an investigation; the media company producing the show for the multinational claimed that the stunt was tested, that competitors had signed waivers absolving the media company of all responsibility, and that all the other competitors completed the stunt safely. But the multinational and the mainstream Pakistani media broke their silence over the incident only after pressure from the online community, who asked hard questions about the incident in blog posts and online forums. Still, the multinational only issued a vague corporate statement about ‘rightness’ rather than addressing the questions raised by the young man’s death. Even worse, they have not addressed the legitimacy of reality television as a concept, and why exactly they felt the need to sponsor such a dangerous programme. People need to know the risks of participating in stunts for reality shows, at the very least, and corporate unwillingness to come through with an adequate explanation for their motives and procedures will leave countless others unaware and unprotected.

Where, again, are the media standards, the watchdogs to make sure that lives are not being destroyed by money-hungry producers and advertisers? Where are the people who can give guidance to our youngsters, to show them that there’s a world of difference between being brave for a good cause and risking their lives for no good reason? The young are reckless, and don’t always value their health and their safety, but surely there’s someone out there in the big bad world of media with a conscience who can give them all a much-needed reality check. And take that hideous show with the misogynist presenter who likes to scream at young girls and urge young boys to push safety pins through their lips off the air, please. This is not the kind of entertainment that we Pakistanis really need to see.

binashah@yahoo.com

Source

Read more...

Mir Shakil-ur-Rahman: Do some soul searching please!

As to the media group [Jang Group / Geo TV] in question, they too need to do some soul searching to establish whether their practices of recent days are in conformity with best practice in journalism. Personalised vitriol may vent anger, but does not meet the test of impartiality, accuracy and restraint in recognition of the respect due to the head of state and high government functionaries. After all, the exchange should not degenerate to the level of a street brawl. None of the parties would come out of such a fracas smelling like roses.

Editorial in Daily Times, 27 Nov 2009

President Asif Ali Zardari delivered a hard-hitting speech at the PPP’s foundation day rally in Karachi, albeit from the presidency in Islamabad. Breaking his silence over what he termed were conspiracies being hatched to weaken his presidency and the PPP government, he vowed to fight all the “political actors” out to destabilise the democratic system. One media group in particular, which has for some time now has been waging what some have described as a concerted, motivated, vitriolic (at times bordering on the indecent) campaign against the incumbent in the presidency and the government led by the party of which he is the co-chairperson, came in for some harsh stick in the president’s address. Labelling them “pranksters masquerading as political actors”, he singled out the group’s editor and some TV anchorpersons for his harshest comments. He argued that neither the political parties nor the establishment were involved in trying to derail the system, only some “political jokers” were responsible for what he said was a vicious campaign to destabilise the government. He advised all such aspirants to a role in politics and those parties that had boycotted the last elections to wait their turn at the next elections, since the PPP and he had a mandate for five years and would see it through. Only the masses had the right to decide the fate of the PPP at the next elections, the president asserted.

It should not perhaps come as a surprise that the president has finally responded in like fashion to the heaps of calumny some media persons, and one group in particular, have been throwing at his person and the government for many months now. Pakistani politics is not known for civilised restraint, and the president may be forgiven for being all too human and succumbing to resentment after admirably holding his peace for all this time. Having said that, even if some concession is made to the fact that it was a political rally and the president was speaking in the avatar of the party co-chairperson, perhaps dignifying the visceral campaign against him and the government in mocking terms was not the right way to counter the one-sided tide. The PPP continues to suffer from a dearth of good media managers and spokespeople who can effectively counter criticism in an age of free media. Having vented his spleen, perhaps the co-chairperson should consider this weakness in the ranks of his party and government and take steps to bring forward people who do their homework diligently and are therefore well prepared against any onslaught, no matter from what quarter it emanates.

As to the media group in question, they too need to do some soul searching to establish whether their practices of recent days are in conformity with best practice in journalism. Personalised vitriol may vent anger, but does not meet the test of impartiality, accuracy and restraint in recognition of the respect due to the head of state and high government functionaries. After all, the exchange should not degenerate to the level of a street brawl. None of the parties would come out of such a fracas smelling like roses.

Restraint is advised to all sides in this controversy. The media group should revisit its policies and attitudes. The government and the presidency should also find better ways to counter what they regard as the spin against them in the media, fighting unacceptable arguments with better ones. On no account should the authorities indulge in heavy-handed tactics to try and intimidate the media or any part of it, as that will, in present-day Pakistan, have the opposite effect to that intended. Now that all is in the open, perhaps a truce or cooling off period on all sides should be the order of the day.

Read more...

Democrats, beware! - Article By Nadeem Paracha

In the following article, Nadeem Paracha offers a critical analysis of certain (pro-establishment, pro-Taliban and anti-democracy)elements in Pakistani media (e.g. Dr Shahid Masood, Shaheen Sehbai, Geo TV, and The News) who are dismantling the institution of democracy in Pakistan on various pretexts such as the anti-NRO and anti-politicians campaign.

The criticism against the PPP and PML (N) has very little to do with any constructive assessment, as such. On the contrary, quite like in the 1990s, some high profile newspaper reporters (and now also TV anchors) have yet again suddenly managed to get hold of ‘vital facts and figures on corruption,’ that have otherwise eluded even the most astute investigative reporters. Exactly where these facts and figures suddenly appear from, I’ll leave that to your own discretion. But the truth is these ‘reports’ read and sound more like anti-democracy indoctrination speeches than a crusading case of journalism, really. Have some columnists and TV personalities gotten down to once again preparing the ground for democracy’s disgrace? The alarming phenomenon is, that this time around these ‘forces’ (with their own tainted pasts) can now be seen on popular TV channels as well; meaning that this time the mantra against the ‘corrupt’ abomination called democracy is set to influence a much larger number of people.

Democrats, beware!
Ever since Field Martial Ayub Khan toppled a blundering conglomerate of civil servants and politicians in a military coup in 1958, as a culture, Pakistan was moulded into a desperate group of people to whom democracy was akin to corruption and chaos.

But compared to the 1950s, corruption scaled unprecedented heights during the Ayub dictatorship, and it was this corruption that generated a fresh interest in democracy among a new generation of politicians and youth in the 1960s.

Between 1967 and 1970, a movement led by progressive students and fiery politicians opened a new window of opportunity for democracy.

However, with the tragic dismemberment of the country in 1971 that saw East Pakistan become Bangladesh, this gave various politico-religious parties and conservative ‘pro-establishment’ politicians and intellectuals the fodder they needed to at once term the 1971 debacle as a demonic consequence of democracy.

In the 1970s this meant two things: first, that in spite of the exploitative ways the establishment had treated its Eastern wing, Bengalis were termed as ‘traitors.’ Secondly, some rightwing journalists and parties like the Jamaat-i-Islami started to claim that it was Bhutto who was responsible for the East Pakistan debacle.

Though a much loved leader, as Prime Minister, Bhutto awkwardly bounced between populist democracy and autocracy, in a way preparing his own downfall at the hands of forces that had been rejected by the electorate in the 1970 elections

Some suggest that Bhutto’s erratic behaviour in this context was mostly due to a concerted smear campaign against his personality (by the ‘rightwing press’) and against democracy itself that was said to be ‘undermining Islam’s place in Pakistan.’

Not surprisingly, during the 1977 elections, the anti-Bhutto coalition, the Pakistan National Alliance’s slogan became, ‘Nizam-i-Mustafa’ (a system based on Shariah).

Though Bhutto blundered by doctoring an election he could have won on his own, this gave his opponents the chance to pounce upon him like never before. But some opposition leaders panicked when Bhutto rallies once again started attracting large numbers of people.

A number of respected historians have claimed that the Alliance’s leadership then ‘requested’ the military (under General Ziaul Haq), to intervene, and which it gladly did.

Thus, in the next eleven years, state-owned media, politico-religious parties, anti-Bhutto politicians and educationists were used by the Zia dictatorship to engrave in the people’s minds the supposed incompatibility between Pakistan and democracy.

In the chaotic midst of rampant corruption, ethnic and sectarian violence, and the imposition of brutal laws (in the name of Islam) by the dictatorship, it continued to accuse democracy as a system that produced ‘monsters’ like Bhutto and divorced Islam from the political and social fabric of Pakistan.

The anti-democracy mantra and mindset cultivated during the dictatorship was now so well entrenched that even the revival of democracy after Zia’s death in 1988 failed to exorcise it.

Despite Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif’s own obvious shortcomings, it would not be far-fetched to suggest that at every turn during the 1990s, those associated with various intelligence agencies and politico-religious parties used a large section of the popular press to continue portraying democracy and democrats as abominations ‘planted by anti-Pakistan forces’ to ‘compromise Pakistan’s strategic victory in Afghanistan,’ and ‘work against Pakistan’s Islamic credentials’.

Another thing that was clearly exaggerated was the way democracy bred corruption because during the 1990s politicians weren’t any more or less corrupt than what they had been — along with a number of military men, bankers and businessmen — during the Zia dictatorship.

Today, some two years after the dramatic revival of democracy after the PPP, PML(N) and the lawyers’ movement successfully dislodged the Musharraf dictatorship, we are once again hearing the same mantra of ‘corruption’ and ‘incompetence’ coming from sections of the popular press and the private electronic media.

The criticism against the PPP and PML (N) has very little to do with any constructive assessment, as such. On the contrary, quite like in the 1990s, some high profile newspaper reporters (and now also TV anchors) have yet again suddenly managed to get hold of ‘vital facts and figures on corruption,’ that have otherwise eluded even the most astute investigative reporters. Exactly where these facts and figures suddenly appear from, I’ll leave that to your own discretion. But the truth is these ‘reports’ read and sound more like anti-democracy indoctrination speeches than a crusading case of journalism, really.

Have some columnists and TV personalities gotten down to once again preparing the ground for democracy’s disgrace?

The alarming phenomenon is, that this time around these ‘forces’ (with their own tainted pasts) can now be seen on popular TV channels as well; meaning that this time the mantra against the ‘corrupt’ abomination called democracy is set to influence a much larger number of people.

No wonder then, according to a recent British Council survey, a very small percentage of young Pakistanis have any faith in democracy; but up to 60 per cent of these young men and women trust the Army and, more alarmingly, up to 50 per cent exhibit faith in the madressahs — the very institutions that have been behind some of the messiest political, economic and cultural blunders that have continued to haunt Pakistan till this day. Source
Read more...

Shoaib Bhutta: Geo TV bribes judiciary to suppress the voice of an independent journalist

By Abdul Nishapuri

Shoaib Bhutta is the name of a courageous journalist who tried to expose the evil designs of Mir Shakil-ur-Rahman and his commerical empire known as Geo TV / Jang Group. He was the one who revealed a few weeks ago that Mir Shakil-ur-Rahman has demanded 400 crore rupees from President Zardari in order to stop the anti-democracy propaganda by Jang and Geo TV.

Additional Sessions Judge, Islamabad, Muhammad Tanvir Mir, has been bribed ten million rupees (one crore) by Mir Shakil-ur-Rahman to issue an arrest warrnat of a serving journalist. Independent journalists have protested against this act of Geo TV/Jang group / Judiciary as an attack on freedom of press.

Here is a history of Shoaib Bhutta:

Pakistan media freedom report 2002
On 5 August, Shoaib Bhutta, journalist with the weekly Capital, was severely beaten by armed individuals in a street of Faisalabad (centre of the country). The attackers were wearing security guard uniforms. Shoaib Bhutta suffered a broken leg. He was one of the rare journalists who had ignored the governmental directive inciting journalists to actively cover the trial of Asif Ali Zardari, husband of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. Source

Reporters wihtout Borders: 2008 Report on Pakistan
Serious police brutality
Brutality and raids against the media also accompanied the imposition of emergency rule [of General Musharraf in 2007]. The secret services also went after journalists, and even more aggressively. Eight agents arrested Shoaib Bhutta, editor of the Urdu-language Daily Tulou at his office in Islamabad in November 2007. In two days of questioning, during which he was kept chained up and deprived of sleep, they quizzed him about why he was critical of the authorities. Source

Newspaper editor released
By Our Staff Reporter (Dawn, November 20, 2007)

ISLAMABAD, Nov 19: An Urdu newspaper editor, who was picked up by the personnel of law enforcement agencies at the weekend, was released here on Monday evening.

Shoaib Bhutta, the editor of Daily Tulou, was handed over to a group of journalists some 500 meters away from the Cantonment police station at around 6:30pm.

Mr Bhutta was picked up by a group of eight people believed to be personnel of a security agency from his office last Saturday night.

Mr Bhutta, when contacted, said he was picked up from his office, blindfolded and taken to an unidentified place where he was kept in the same condition till Monday morning.

During the period he was not allowed to sleep and was fettered too.

The personnel informed him that he was detained allegedly on the orders of the Punjab chief minister and the inspector general of police.

The personnel also asked him why he wrote against the president and the chief minister, but they did not produce any material in this regard on his request.

The captors also inquired about people who assist the journalists in their ongoing movement, he added.

Mr Bhutta quoted the personnel as saying that their high-ups directed them to arrest him, besides checking his record.

Sohail Iqbal, the chief editor of Online news agency, told Dawn that the president of Rawalpindi-Islamabad Press Club Mushtaq Minhas asked him to contact the station house officer of the Cantonment police station and get the editor released.

He said that the SHO told him that Mr Bhutta was handed over to him on Sunday night. This was a very high-level matter and Deputy Inspector General of Police Rawalpindi himself supervised it, Mr Iqbal quoted the SHO as saying.

“He (Mr Bhutta) was released as he was cleared during investigation,” the SHO told Mr Iqbal.

Meanwhile, a group of five personnel wearing Punjab Constabulary uniform stormed the office of Daily Tulou located at G-7/1 Monday morning and seized all the office record and computer.

They also searched the office from top to bottom. However, the record and computer were also handed over to the journalists in the evening. Source

Court [bribed by Geo TV] issues arrest warrant for Bhutta
Thursday, November 26, 2009 (The News)

ISLAMABAD: Additional Sessions Judge, Islamabad, Muhammad Tanvir Mir, has issued an arrest warrant for Muhammad Shoaib Bhutta, publisher of a daily in Islamabad.

The judge summoned him on December 4 to ensure his presence in the court. The court issued an arrest warrant for Bhutta on the complaint of Abdul Aziz Mohmand, resident editor the Jang, The News and Geo editorial management, and on the basis of arguments and evidence presented before the court.

Abdul Aziz Mohmand in his application stated that in the best national interests, the Jang Group had played a leading role in the movement for an independent judiciary and rightly represented the masses. Besides, the Jang Group and Geo TV raised the issues of governance and corruption among the masses, due to which the group has to face serious challenges, he added.

He stated that the said person published defamatory, unfounded, false and baseless reports and financial charges in his newspaper against the Jang Group to damage its popularity and reputation among the masses.

The daily alleged that the head of the Jang Group editorial had sent a message to important personalities of the government that if they wanted end to one-sided campaign against them and personnel of the judiciary in the group newspapers, editorials and electronic media, they have to accept their demands. After the government refusal the group editorial head gave go-ahead to his workers and said that if the government is facing difficulties, then it should cut advertisements of other newspapers and electronic media to fulfil their shortage.

Abdul Aziz Mohmand maintained that the said publisher republished such baseless materials twice, and damaged the reputation of the group and tried to weaken its commitment.

The petitioner said that besides publishing baseless news against Geo TV, Daily Jang and The News the publisher Malik Shoaib Bhutta also printed posters and panaflex banners with logos of Geo TV, Jang and The News. The posters contained extremely contemptuous sentences against the Jang Group of Newspapers and Geo TV. When the workers of the Jang and well-wisher readers removed those banners and posters after the city administration failed to do so despite repeated complaints, the said publisher reported the next day, “the Jang Group could not tolerate few banners and posters against it”.

The same person also levelled baseless allegations against Jang Group during a talkshow on official TV channel. The petitioner requested the police to register an FIR against the accused, but the police neither responded positively nor registered an FIR.

Abdul Aziz Mohmand pleaded in his petition that this act was crime under section 499, 5000, 501, 502 and 502A of the Pakistan Penal Code. Additional Sessions Judge Muhammad Tanvir Mir accepted the petition for regular hearing on the basis of arguments and evidences and said it seemed that Mohammad Shoaib Bhutta had intentionally committed defamation, hence his arrest warrant were being issued. The court adjourned the hearing till December 4, 2009 and ordered to appear before the court. Source

Read more...

Sultani Gawah: Have a heart, you are a 'crown witness', Mr Sehbai.

By Abdul Nishapuri

'Sultani Gawah' is an Urdu word meaning 'crown witness of the prosecution'. Those who understand the nature of power politics in Pakistan know where exactly crown (power) lies in Pakistan. Not very long ago, in 2002, Shaheen Sehbai was forced to leave the country because of his anti-ISI and anti-Pakistan Army columns. However, after a few years in exile (in which he wrote scores of articles defaming not only Pakistan Army but also declaring Pakistan as a terrorist state), he was allowed to return to the country in 2005. However, this time his role was a bit different. He was a "Sultani Gawah" of the establishment against the political class of Pakistan. This "Sultani Gawah" has nevertheless more than one masters, within and outside Pakistan.

In his words (The News, 26 November 2009): "Zardari's political colleagues are easy for him to handle because many of them are in the same boat of looted wealth and plundered resources." Source

Here is a brief historical overview which will help understand Shaheen Sehbai's current manoeuvres and manipulations.

Sehbai exposes ISI's connections with terrorists 2002

Mr Shaheen Sehbai (veteran journalist; currently resident editor of The News), escaped from Pakistan in 2002 to save himself from the so-called wrath of the establishment (Pakistan Army / ISI), after the controversy surrounding his story about the murder of Daniel Pearl. It was apparently simply to obtain the Green Card for himself, and his family in the United States. The Sehbai family dream came true when they finally got the USA passports.

On February 16, 2002, Sehbai let a story run that "exposed" Pakistan Army's ties with terrorist bombings in India (a story that also ran in The Washington Post and The International Herald Tribune). The government immediately stopped its advertisements in The News International, and asked The News to take action against those involved in the creation and publishing of the false story defaming the country and Pakistan Army.

Sehbai fired by Mir Shakil-ur-Rahman 2002

Because of the Daniel Pearl situation at the time, the Pakistani government was anxious to crush any rumors of connections to terrorism, and made a great deal of effort to reform its image. After the February 16th, 2002 article, The News CEO, Mir Shakil-ur-Rahman asked Sehbai to resign because of his violation of the newspaper policy.

International smear campaign against Pakistan 2002-2005

In the USA, Mr Sehbai then started to run a web based news service, i.e., South Asia Tribune, funded through dubious sources (most probably by Mossad and CIA), in which he reported many cases of government and military corruption in Pakistan.

In 2005 he announced that he was closing The South Asian Tribune after three years of service. It is understood that he negotiated a deal with the establishment (Pakistan Army) and agreed to be a sultani gawah (crown witness for the prosecution) to promote establishment's interests in Pakistan.

During his self-imposed exile in the USA, he used to raise hue and cry against the military establishment that he and his family members’ life was in danger, but the so-called danger apparently vanished after the whole family getting the Green Cards.

Sultani Gawah 2005 - present

He then returned to Pakistan and that too under the same Musharraf regime, and joined ARY TV channel, then GEO, and then the News, where he is presently working. However, the secret deal struck between Sehbai and the ISI revolved around his role as a Sultani Gawah, an agents of the establishment against the political class in Pakistan.

Upon Zardari coming to power, he suddenly became active, and started writing almost a daily column in order to be noticed by Zardari. He was hoping to be appointed High Commissioner to Canada as he was competing with Haqqani. When this could not materialize, he became more bitter and along with other tools of the establishment (the pro-Taliban lobby including but not limited to Dr Shahid Masood, Ansar Abbasi etc) started yelping against the democratic government of Pakistan.

Invitation for a martial law 2008

Not only this Mr. Sehbai also tried to drag Pakistan Amry and wrote a letter to the Chief of Army Staff General Kayani urging him to intervene before the installation of political set up. The situation would be quite different if Mr. Sehbai was made ambassador to Canada, he would be praising Govt but alas the greedy dog could not get and now woofing madly.

Why is Sehbai unhappy with President Zardari?

Here is the list of various demands by Shaheen Sehbai and his cronies presented to President Zardari:

1. Removal of a criminal case against Shaheen Sehbai which was registered against Sehbai in 2001. The person who filed the complaint with the Rawalpindi police on 21 August is Khalid Hijazi, who is the former husband of a cousin of Sehbai. The complaint alleges that Sehbai carried out an “armed robbery” in his home on 22 February 2001. Sehbai was told by President Zardari that he must face these charges in a court of law.

2. Sehbai tried to approach Chief Justice Abdul Hamid Dogar for ’settlement’ of this case but his request was turned down.

3. Shaheen Sehbai’s team members (Ansar Abbasi and Shahid Masood in particular) are vehement supporters of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. They are upset with President Zardari because of his decision to fight terrorist of Taliban and Al Qaeda.

4. On February 16, 2002, Sehbai let a story run that “exposed” government Pakistani ties with terrorist bombings in India (a story that also ran in The Washington Post and The International Herald Tribune by the work of the reporter, not Sehbai). The government immediately stopped its advertisements in The News, and put inordinate pressure on the company to fire those involved in the creation and publishing of the story.

5. Mr. Sehbai returned to America and started a web based newspaper, The South Asian Tribune, in which he produced many false stories against Pakistan. Obviously he became bitter towards Musharraf because of Musharraf’s tough stance on war on terror and also because Musharraf had decided to weaken ties between ISI and Jihadis/Talibans. In 2005, Sehbai, announced that he was closing The South Asian Tribune after three years of service.

6. Invitation to the Army Chief General Kayani to intervene in politics: In his highly controversial article in Daily The News on 2 September 2008, Shaheen Sehbai states that the very fact that Asif Zardari is about to become the head of the state of Pakistan proves how big a mess Musharraf made. He says thus it is the army’s duty to fix it as the political parties certainly are not capable of doing it. “Risking the charge that will instantly be thrown at me that I am inviting the Army to intervene again”, he offers a seven-step plan for General Kiyani.Extremely shameful articles by Shaheen Sehbai. He is asking for a new Martial Law. What a shame

7. In 2009, Sehbai approached Zardari to be appointed as a High Commissioner to Canada. Apparently, the military establishment declined to approve this nomination because of Sehbai's previous hate speech and anti-Pakistan Army campaign in the international media.

Source

Here is an excerpt of Shaheen Sehbai's interview with the Times of India (dated 18 March 2002):

Exposing the Pakistani establishment's links with terrorists can be a hazardous job. It cost Daniel Pearl his life, and Shaheen Sehbai, former editor of 'The News', a widely-read English daily in Pakistan his job. Fearing for his life, Sehbai is now in the US He speaks to Shobha John about the pressure on journalists from the powers-that-be in Pakistan:

Q. Is it true you had to quit because a news report angered the government?
A. On February 16, our Karachi reporter, Kamran Khan, filed a story quoting Omar Sheikh as saying that he was behind the attack on the Indian Parliament on December 13, the Kashmir assembly attack and other terrorist acts in India. Shortly after I am, I got a call on my cellphone from Ashfaq Gondal, the principal information officer of the government, telling me that the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) had intercepted the story and I should stop its publication.

I told him I was not prepared to do so. He then called my newspaper group owner/editor-in-chief, Mir Shakil ur Rehman in London and asked him to stop the story. Rehman stopped it in the Jang, the sister newspaper in Urdu but could not do so in The News as I was unavailable.

The next day, all editions of The News carried the story. It was also carried by The Washington Post and The International Herald Tribune the same day, as Kamran also reports for The Post. On February 18, all government advertising for the entire group was stopped.

On February 22, Rehman rushed to Karachi and called a meeting at 10 p m. He told me the government was 'very angry' at the story. He said he had been told to sack four journalists, including myself, if the ads were to be restored. He asked me to proceed to Islamabad to pacify the officials. Sham informed us that he had contacted the officials and was told by Anwar Mahmood, the information secretary that 'the matter was now beyond his capacity and we will have to see the ISI high-ups to resolve it'. I was told to go and see the ISI chief in Islamabad and also to call Anwar Mahmood on Eid and improve my 'public relations' with him.

I left the meeting with the firm resolve that I would neither call nor meet anyone, even at gunpoint. Sham, however, left for Islamabad to meet the officials. His meetings were unsuccessful. From my sources, I learned that the ISI and the government were not prepared to lift the ban unless I gave them specific assurances. If I refused, there may be trouble for me as the owner was already under pressure to fire me and the other three journalists.

On February 27, I took a flight out of Karachi to New York. On February 28, I received a memo from my owner accusing me of policy violations. In reply, on March 1, I sent in my resignation.

Q. Is the ISI still keeping a close watch on journalists after Daniel Pearl's killing?
A. The ISI has been a major player in domestic politics and continues to be so. That means it has to control the media and right now, it is actively involved in doing so. Pearl's murder has given them more reasons to activate the national interest excuse.

Q. Is there a sense of desperation within the Pakistan government that it should not be linked in any way to events in India?
A. Yes. That's why when our story quoted Omar Sheikh claiming such links, the government came down hard on us.

Q. Has there been any pressure on the staff of 'The News' to 'conform'?
A. Yes. The News was under constant pressure to stop its aggressive reporting on the corruption of the present government. A few months back, Pakistan International Airlines stopped all ads to The News as we ran a couple of exposes. A major story on the government owned United Bank was blocked when we sought the official version. Intelligence agencies were deputed to tail our reporters in Islamabad.

Q. This is not the first time you and your family have been under pressure, is it?
A. I have been the target of physical attacks in the past too for stories against the government. The first was in August 1990 when I was arrested and detained for 36 hours and falsely charged for drinking, before a judge gave bail. The second time, in December 1991, three masked men broke into my house in Islamabad, ransacked it, pulled guns on my two sons, beat them up and told them, "Tell your father to write against the government again and see what happens". In 1995, I was threatened once again and I had to take my entire family away. My newspaper then, Dawn, decided to post me to Washington as their correspondent. This time, I feared that I could be physically targeted again. So I decided to leave the country.

Q. What do you propose to do now?
A. I will be writing out of Washington for some time and will return to Pakistan around the October polls. My days in Pakistan were very exciting as I maintained a completely independent editorial policy and pursued it to the last day. In the memos written by the owner, he repeatedly complains that I was not consulting him on policies. I had no need to, as he watches his own commercial interests. Source

Oath of citizenship (United States)

The United States Oath of Allegiance (officially referred to as the "Oath of Allegiance," 8 C.F.R. Part 337 (2008)) is an oath that must be taken by all immigrants who wish to become United States citizens. The first officially recorded Oaths of Allegiance were made on May 30th, 1778 at Valley Forge, during the Revolutionary War.

The current oath is as follows:

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.

In acknowledgement whereof I have hereunto affixed my signature.
Shaheen Sehbai 15 October 2004.

Read more...

Pakistani People's Action against Geo TV and Jang Group

’اسٹیبلشمنٹ نہیں کچھ اداکار حکومت ہٹانا چاہتے ہیں ‘

کراچی میں پاکستان پیپلز پارٹی کے تینتالیسواں یومِ تاسیس کے جلسہ عام سے ایوان صدر اسلام آباد سے بذریعہ سیٹلائیٹ خطاب کرتے ہوئے صدر آصف علی زرداری نےکہا کہ پارلیمنٹ اور اپوزیشن بالغ ہوچکی ہے، اس لیے اپوزیشن اور نہ ہی اسٹیبلمشنٹ چاہتی ہے کہ یہ جمہوری نظام پٹڑی سے اترے۔ صدر زرداری نے کہا ’صرف سیاسی اداکاروں کی یہ خواہش ہے۔‘

انہوں نے کہا کہ سندھ نے پاکستان بنایا اور پیپلز پارٹی نے آج تک اسے قائم و دائم رکھا ہے اور آئندہ بھی رکھیں گے۔’چند لوگ یہ سمجھتے ہیں کہ اداکاری کرکے ان سے ان کا حق چھین لیں گے۔‘

صدر زرداری نے پاکستان کے ایک بڑے میڈیا گروپ کا نام لیے بغیر کہا کہ ایک چینل کی اجارہ داری قائم ہوگئی ہے ’وہ اپنا ریٹ لینا چاہتے ہیں مگر ہم اس کے ریٹ دیئے بغیر یہاں پہنچے تھے، ان کے ریٹ دیئے بغیر یہاں بیٹھے ہیں اور ان کا ریٹ دیئے بغیر آنے والے انتخابات میں کامیاب ہوں گے ۔‘

By Abdul Nishapuri

Pakistani People's response to blackmailing by Mir Shakil-ur-Rahman and his slaves at Geo TV / Jang Group

The informed and politically aware people of Pakistan will not succumb to the blackmailing of Geo TV / Jang Group (Jang / The News).

This is our message to Mir Shakil-ur-Rahman and his anti-democracy propaganda team, namely Dr Shahid Masood (President of Pakistani Taliban Union of Journalists), Ansar Abbsi (Taliban agent), Shaheen Sehbai (the Zionist mouthpiece against ISI, the USA passport holder), Muhammad Saleh Zaafir (Taliban apologist) and others.

DO NOT act as pawns of the establishment in trying to derail democracy. Do not weaken the already fragile institution of constitutional government in Pakistan.

DO NOT defame politicians while remaining criminally silent over corruption and mismanagement by the holy cows of the military and civil establishment in Pakistan.

DO NOT exploit the innocent people of Pakistan by creating an artificial Islam versus USA hype. Don't defame the war on terror; don't eulogize Taliban butchers.

If Geo TV, Jang and The News do not refrain from yellow journalism, and do not refrain from hatching conspiracies against the people's government, then we, the people of Pakistan, will be entitled to use the following legal means to express our displeasure:

1. We will stop buying Jang, The News and other newspapers published by the Jang Group.
2. We will stop subscribing to Geo TV and other TV channels of the Jang Group in Pakistan and abroad.
3. As owners and managers of private and multinational companies, we will not seek to advertise our products and services through Geo TV, Jang, The News and other publications and outlets of the Jang Group.
4. We will ask cable operators in our cities, towns and local communities to stop transmitting Geo TV to our homes and businesses.
5. We will put public pressure on federal, provincial and local governments to refrain from pumping the public advertising revenue to the media outlets, newspapers and TV channels of the Jang Group.
6. We will file cases in the courts of law in all the four provinces as well as in FATA, Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan against the administrators and owners of Geo TV and the Jang Group for trying to subvert the legal and constitutional government of Pakistan through unconstitutional means.

List of publications and TV channels by the Jang Group:

• Daily Jang
• The News
• Geo TV
• Daily News
• Daily Awam
• Weekly Akhbar-e-Jahan
• Weekly The Mag
• Geo News
• Geo TV (entertainment)
• Geo Super
• Aag TV

Request to our visitors and contributors:

We at 'Let us build Pakistan' request you to provide us with substantial legal evidence and documents against the wrongdoings of Mir Shakil-ur-Rahman and his team so that these blackmailers could be dragged in a court of law in due course of time. We assure you of complete confidentiality and anonymity. Please write to us at: pakistanteam@gmail.com

Read more...

NRO and the media hype: What is the real issue? An analysis by Amir Ahmed Khan

Here is an article by BBC Urdu's Amir Ahmed Khan highlighting that NRO has nothing to do with the real life issues of the majority of Pakistanis, nor are they interested in it. In a nutshell, NRO is a media created storm in a cup of tea.

این آر آو کس کا مسئلہ ہے؟

عامر احمد خان

بی بی سی اردو ڈاٹ کام، لندن

این آر او ایک وسیع ترقومی مفاہمتی فسلفے کا حصہ ہے

اگر پاکستانی میڈیا اور خصوصاً پاکستان کے نجی ٹیلیوژن چینلز کو کسی نے پچھلے چند دنوں باقاعدگی سے دیکھا ہو تو وہ یقیناً اس نتیجے پر پہنچا ہو گا کہ اس وقت ملک میں قومی مفاہمتی آرڈیننس یا این آر او سے بڑا مسلہء اور کوئی نہیں۔

لیکن اگر یہی شخص اپنے ڈرائینگ روم سے باہر نکل کر عوام سے بات کرے تو شاید اس نتیجے پر پہنچے کہ این آر او سے نہ تو عوام کو کوئی دلچسپی ہے اور نہ ہی عوام کی نظر میں اس کی کوئی اہمیت۔

میں نے حال ہی میں اپنے چند ساتھیوں کے ساتھ کراچی سے اسلام آباد تک نیشنل ہائی وے اور انڈس ہائی وے پر سفر کیا۔ لگ بھگ بارہ سو میل کے اس سفر میں کئی پڑاؤ کیے۔ کراچی، شہید بینظیر آباد، نواب شاہ، مورو، لاڑکانہ، کشمور، راجن پور، ڈیرہ غازی خان، ملتان اور جھنگ کے راستے اسلام آباد پہنچے۔

اگر پاکستانی میڈیا اپنا کردار صرف خبروں، اطلاعات، تجزیوں اور تبصروں تک ہی محدود رکھ پائے تو شاید اس مسئلہ پر جاری بحث مباحثے کا رخ ایک بار پھر شخصی سیاست سے قومی مفاہمت کے عمل کی جانب مڑ جائے۔

بہت سے لوگوں سے ملاقات ہوئی، بات ہوئی، ہر طرح کا ذکر سنا۔ غربت، مہنگائی، بے روزگاری، تعلیم، انتہا پسندی، قوم پرستی حتٰی کہ سرائیکی صوبے کا بھی ذکر سنا لیکن اگر کسی ایک چیز کا کہیں بھی ذکر نہ آیا تو وہ این آر او تھا۔

آخر ایسا کیوں ہے کہ جو مسئلہ آجکل پاکستانی میڈیا کے لیے اولین ترجیح رکھتا ہے اس کی عوام کے دل و دماغ میں رائی برابر جگہ بھی نہیں؟

شاید اس کی ایک وجہ یہ ہو کہ پاکستانی سیاست نے جس دھاگے میں این آر او اور عوامی امنگوں کو اکٹھا پرونے کی کوشش کی ہے وہ دھاگہ ہی وقت کی لہروں میں بہہ گیا ہے۔

اسے یوں سمجھنے کی کوشش کیجیے۔ این آر او بذات خود ایک بے معنی قانون ہے۔ یہ ماننا مشکل ہے کہ جن سیاستدانوں پر برسہا برس مخالف حکومتوں کی جانب سے ایڑی چوٹی کا زور لگانے کے باوجود کسی کیس کو ثابت نہیں کیا جا سکا، انہیں یکایک اپنی سیاسی یا ذاتی بقا کے لیے این آر او کی ضرورت پڑ جائے۔

این آر او لوگوں کے لیے کوئی مسئلہ نہیں ہے

این آر او دراصل ایک بہت جامع اور اہم سیاسی فلسفے یعنی قومی مفاہمت کے فلسفے کا ایک چھوٹا سا حصہ ہے۔ قومی مفاہمت کا یہ فلسفہ پاکستان پیپلز پارٹی کی رہنما بے نظیر بھٹو نے کئی برس کی تگ ودو کے بعد دنیا سے منوایا اور دنیا کو پاکستان کے لیے اس کی ضرورت پر قائل کیا۔

این آر او نامی قانون نے جس سیاسی فلسفے کو پاکستان میں نافذ کرنا تھا اس کے تحت ایک طرف تو ملک کی سیاسی جماعتوں کے بیچ اور دوسری طرف سیاسی اور عسکری قیادت کے بیچ ایک ایسی مفاہمت ہونی تھی جس کے بعد پاکستان میں سیاسی بنیادوں پر مقدمے بازی کی روایت ہمیشہ کے لیے ختم کی جا سکے۔

بے نظیر بھٹو تو اس فلسفے کو اور بھی آگے لے جانے کی خواہشمند تھیں۔ وہ کئی سال تک جنوبی افریقہ کی طرز پر حقائق اور مفاہمت کمیشن بنانے پر زور دیتی رہیں جس کے سامنے سب سیاستدان، جرنیل، کاروباری حضرات اور بیوروکریٹس اپنے جرائم کا اعتراف کرتے، آئندہ قانون کی پاسداری کا عہد کرتے، سیاستدان ایک دوسرے کی ٹانگ نہ کھینچنے کا عزم کرتے اور فوجی قیادت سیاسی حکومتوں کے خلاف سازش کرنے سے توبہ کرتی۔

بے نظیر بھٹو کی رائے میں یہ وہ واحد راستہ تھا جو پاکستان کو ماضی کے دلدل سے نکال کر ایک بہتر سیاسی مستقبل کی جانب دھکیل سکتا تھا۔ لیکن ان کی رائے چند سیاستدانوں اور جرنیلوں کی انا پرستی کی نظر ہوئی۔ قومی مفاہمت کا خواب سکڑ کر سیاسی مفاہمت تک محدود ہوا اور یوں بینظیر بھٹو اور میاں نواز شریف کی وطن واپسی کا راستہ کھلا۔

راولپنڈی کے آخری جلسۂ سے قبل بھی بینظیر نے نواز شریف سے بات کی تھی

آجکل پاکستان مسلم لیگ نواز کا یہ کہنا کہ میاں نواز شریف کی وطن واپسی کا این آر او سے کوئی تعلق نہیں تھا محض سیاسی بیان بازی ہے۔ پاکستانی عسکری ذرائع کے مطابق بینظیر بھٹو اور جنرل پرویز مشرف میں ہونے والی ڈیل میں دبئی کے حکمران خاندان کا رول اہم تھا۔ لیکن اس وقت جنرل مشرف کو شاید اس بات کا اندازہ نہیں تھا کہ اگر وہ ایک جلا وطن رہنما کی واپسی پر دبئی کے شیخ کی بات مان لیں تو دوسرے کی واپسی سے متعلق سعودی عرب کے شیخ کو انکار ان کے لیے نا ممکن ہو جائے گا۔

لہٰذا یہ کہنا غلط نہ ہو گا کہ گو میاں نواز شریف این آر او پر ہونے والے مذاکرات کا براہ راست حصہ تو نہ تھے لیکن ان کی واپسی اس قانون سے اتنی ہی جڑی ہوئی تھی جتنی بینظیر بھٹو کی۔

بینظیر بھٹو کی واپسی کے فوراً بعد ہونے والی سیاست عوام میں این آر او کی مقبولیت کا منہ بولتا ثبوت تھی۔ اس وقت پاکستان مسلم لیگ قاف نے بہت شور مچایا کہ بی بی جنرل مشرف کے ساتھ ڈیل کر کے واپس آ رہی ہے لیکن اس کے باوجود لاکھوں لوگوں نے انہیں کراچی میں خوش آمدید کہا۔

وطن واپسی کے بعد بینظیر بھٹو نے ایک دانستہ حکمت عملی کے تحت میاں نواز شریف سے مسلسل رابطہ رکھا۔ ان کے قریبی ساتھیوں کا کہنا ہے کہ قتل ہونے سے کچھ دیر پہلے ہی انہوں نے میاں نواز شریف سے ٹیلیفون پر بات کی تھی۔ بینظیر بھٹو کی ہر بات اور ہر حرکت سے واضح تھا کہ وہ اپنے مفاہمتی فلسفے کو محض ایک قانون تک ہی محدود نہیں رکھنا چاہتی تھیں۔ ان کی یہ واضح خواہش تھی کہ وہ اپنے ناقدین پر ثابت کریں کہ این آر او ان کی ذاتی سیاست کی بقا نہیں بلکہ پاکستان میں مفاہمت کے مستقبل کے لیے مشعل راہ ثابت ہو سکتا ہے۔

دہشت گردی بھی عوام کو درپیش مسائل میں شامل ایک بڑا مسئلہ ہے

بینظیر بھٹو کا اصرار تھا کہ جب سیاسی دشمنی کی دیواروں کو قانونی سہارا دے کر کھڑا کیا ہو تو انہیں گرا کر ان کی جگہ سیاسی مفاہمت کی بنیادیں ڈالنا بھی قانونی سہارے کے بغیر ممکن نہیں۔ ان کی نظر میں این آر او کے بغیر چارٹر آف ڈیموکریسی پر عمل درآمد ناممکن تھا اور اس معاملے میں پاکستان مسلم لیگ نواز کے سربراہ میاں نواز شریف نے کبھی ان سے اختلاف نہیں کیا۔

ستائیس دسمبر دو ہزار سات کو بینظیر بھٹو کو قتل کر دیا گیا۔ ان کی موت کے ساتھ ہی پاکستان میں تیزی سے پنپتی ہوئی سیاسی مفاہمت نے بھی دم توڑ دیا۔ سیاسی مفاہمت کے اس کھیل میں میاں نواز شریف اس وقت تک بینظیر بھٹو کے جونئیر پارٹنر بنے رہنے پر آمادہ تھے۔ لیکن بینظیر بھٹو کی موت سے پیدا ہونے والے سیاسی خلا نے انہیں نئی راہیں دکھائیں۔

دوسری جانب بینظیر بھٹو کے شوہر آصف زرداری کی سیاست نے بھی ایک نئی کروٹ لی۔ بینظیر بھٹو یہ طے کر کے وطن لوٹیں تھیں کہ آصف زرداری دبئی میں رہتے ہوئے بچوں کا خیال رکھیں گے۔ لیکن ان کی موت نے پارٹی کی ذمہ داری آصف زرداری پر ڈال دی جو نہ تو بینظیر بھٹو کے سیاسی مفاہمت کے فلسفے سے پوری طرح واقف تھے اور نہ ہی اسے عملی جامہ پہنانے کا سیاسی قد کاٹھ رکھتے تھے۔

نتیجتاً صورتحال ججوں کی بحالی پر جھگڑے سے ہوتی ہوئی پنجاب حکومت کی برطرفی تک جا پہنچی۔ فوج نے کیری لوگر بل پر اعتراض کیا تو مسلم لیگ نواز کے رہنماؤں اور عسکری قیادت کے بیچ رات گئے ملاقاتوں کا سلسلہ شروع ہو گیا۔ سنہ دو ہزار نو پر انیس سو نوے کا گماں ہونے لگا۔ وہ سیاسی مفاہمت جو این آر او کی روح تھی، دم توڑ گئی۔

لیکن حیرانگی کی بات یہ ہے کہ پاکستان میں این آر او پر موجودہ بحث صرف اور صرف صدر آصف علی زرداری کی شخصیت پر مرکوز نظر آتی ہے۔ پاکستانی میڈیا میں صدر مخالف دھڑا یہ ماننے کو تیار ہی نظر نہیں آتا کہ این آر او کی موت دشمن کی نہیں دوست کی موت ہے۔

وہی این آر او جس نے پاکستانی سیاست کو مفاہمت کے ایک نئے دور میں لے جانا تھا چند گنے چنے لوگوں کی ذاتی سیاست کا پہرے دار نظر آنے لگا۔ ایسے میں پاکستان پیپلز پارٹی کے پاس دو راستے بچے۔ یا تو وہ بینظیر بھٹو کے مفاہمتی فلسفے کو پھر سے زندہ کر کے این آر او پر ویسا ہی اتفاق رائے پیدا کر لیتی جو اس کی مقتول رہنما کی زندگی میں تھا۔ اور یا اس بن روح کے پتلے کو مردہ جان کر فوراً دفنا دیتی۔

ایسا نہ کر کے پاکستان پیپلز پارٹی نے پیاز بھی کھائے اور جوتے بھی۔

لیکن حیرانگی کی بات یہ ہے کہ پاکستان میں این آر او پر موجودہ بحث صرف اور صرف صدر آصف علی زرداری کی شخصیت پر مرکوز نظر آتی ہے۔ پاکستانی میڈیا میں صدر مخالف دھڑا یہ ماننے کو تیار ہی نظر نہیں آتا کہ این آر او کی موت دشمن کی نہیں دوست کی موت ہے۔

اگر پاکستانی میڈیا اپنا کردار صرف خبروں، اطلاعات، تجزیوں اور تبصروں تک ہی محدود رکھ پائے تو شاید اس مسئلہ پر جاری بحث مباحثے کا رخ ایک بار پھر شخصی سیاست سے قومی مفاہمت کے عمل کی جانب مڑ جائے۔

لیکن فی الوقت میڈیا میں صدر مخالف دھڑا سخت بھنایا ہوا نظر آتا ہے۔ این آر او اچھا ہے یا برا، اس سے قطع نظر لگتا یہی ہے کہ اٹھائیس نومبر کے بعد این آر او کی قبر میں اس قانون کے ساتھ ساتھ قومی مفاہمت کا مردہ بھی لیٹے گا۔

اس وقت پاکستان میں میاں نواز شریف وہ واحد سیاستدان ہیں جو اس قبر کی کھدائی روک سکتے ہیں۔

میاں نواز شریف اور صدر زرداری میں کشیدگی اپنی جگہ لیکن این آر او پر ایک سلجھا ہوا اور جامع موقف اختیار کر کے وہ بینظیر بھٹو کے اس سیاسی فلسفے کو پھر سے زندہ کر سکتے ہیں جو ستائیس دسمبر دو ہزار سات کو راولپنڈی کے لیاقت باغ کے باہر ایک گمنام قاتل کے ہاتھوں غارت ہوا تھا

Destabilising the democratic system —Dr Manzur Ejaz
No one has any idea how the NRO is going to play out in the courts. But everyone knows that corruption is rampant in Pakistan and there are no effective means to check it. Ousting Zardari will neither fix the system nor validate the continuation of democracy in Pakistan

During the 1990s Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif took turns serving as prime ministers. Both did not complete their terms. What would have been wrong with Bhutto and Sharif completing their terms? The total number of years they ruled would have been the same number, except that the democratic system would have been consolidated. The purpose of replacing one with the other was not to improve governance but to keep the democratic system unstable. When it was clear that both the PPP and the PML-N can win elections with the same personalities and same functionaries, why was the democratic system continuously subverted?

To understand this better, we can look at the current situation where President Asif Ali Zardari is being pressurised to resign. Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani is also being pushed around to quit. Whoever is playing this game either has no idea of the consequences or is determined to keep destabilising the democratic system in Pakistan. Zardari’s replacement will probably be treated the same way.

All of Zardari’s drawbacks now being highlighted were known to the constituency that elected him. Everyone knew that he and many of his close associates have been protected by the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO). This means that a majority of the electorate, wrongly or rightly, discounted this factor. Now according to the established democratic principles, either he has to be allowed to complete his term or be impeached according to the provisions of the Constitution. Any other method would be a violation of the essential democratic rules.

Zardari was kept in jail for eight years without any verdict on the corruption charges for which he was booked. If he was bailed out in one case the government would register another case to keep him behind bars. Primarily, he was incarcerated as a political bargaining chip. The circumstances helped him and the same game of bargaining in which he was a mere chip eventually elevated him to the seat of the president. The whole game, starting with his incarceration to the presidency, is bizarre. The campaign of ousting him is also part of the same bizarre manipulation.

Like most Pakistanis I too believe that Zardari and his cohorts have used their positions to accumulate illegal money. They siphoned off billions of dollars to foreign banks. They may be doing the same right now. But the question is: how do they do it single-handedly? Many institutions must be involved in this loot and plunder. Why can the system not stop such thefts while they are happening?

Most Pakistanis who have become rich in the last three decades — about 10 percent of the population — have not accumulated wealth through industry, trade or other legal means. An overwhelming majority of the new rich has used illegal means to gain wealth. But the proportionately much higher number of PPP leaders covered by the NRO indicates that the establishment and their proxies had a vendetta against them. Otherwise, hordes of the rich would have been in that list.

No one has any idea how the NRO is going to play out in the courts. But everyone knows that corruption is rampant in Pakistan and there are no effective means to check it. Ousting Zardari will neither fix the system nor validate the continuation of democracy in Pakistan.

Zardari may have been the worst choice as a president but a constituency elected him with full knowledge of his shortcomings. The same constituency has the right to dislodge him according to the provisions of Pakistan’s Constitution. Any other method employed to dismiss him will mean the failure of the democratic system in Pakistan. And the architect of such an illegal ouster should be ready to suggest not just Zardari’s replacement but also an alternative to democracy.

The writer can be reached at manzurejaz@yahoo.com Source

The campaign against the president —Munir Attaullah

It is true that the president can do no right as far as our media is concerned. It is uniformly hostile. And that, to some extent, has been the case even since those early days of 2008 when Mr Zardari first unexpectedly rose to political power

Like most of us when travelling abroad, I try hard to keep up with what is going on in Pakistan. But the many rich and mysterious flavours of the bouillabaisse that is Pakistani politics are best appreciated by local tasting. Experts say that the sense of smell has a pre-eminent role in influencing our sense of taste. Could that be the reason why, when asking the question ‘what’s cooking?’ we find the many delicious aromas of congenial rumours so irresistible to our political palette?

(I assume most readers are sufficiently cosmopolitan to understand that reference to bouillabaisse. With apologies to them, here is an explanatory note for the few who might be a little bemused by my simile. Bouillabaisse is the much beloved fish stew from the south of France, wherein many kinds of fish — including shellfish — are simmered and cooked along with a variety of vegetables, and flavoured with many kinds of herbs.)

I return to Lahore from holiday to discover that all the talk in fashionable social circles, and our opinionated media, is about how the writing is now on the wall for Mr Zardari. Apparently, his days in the Presidency are ‘numbered’. Of course this is nothing new. For the past six months at least, many an all-knowing media pundit has, on more than one occasion, confidently predicted his ‘imminent’ exit.

Like the religious junkie at Hyde Park corner, carrying a placard with the message, ‘repent, for the end is nigh’, it is mighty convenient to leave your predictions vague and not tied to an actual date. But why go as far as Britain? Did our own incomparable Dr D&G, in his monumental documentary of a few years ago, ‘The End of Time’, not work out from various mysterious signs that the one and only real Day of Judgment is also ‘imminent’?

This time round, some of these geniuses have been brave enough to set a date: November 28th, the day the NRO is finally buried. Will the president then fall on his proverbial sword? Don’t bet on it, I say. But what I can do is to make a prediction of my own: their refrain then will conveniently switch from ‘he is going’ to ‘he ought to go because, blah blah blah...’

My past reaction to such nonsense has usually been a bored yawn. For none of these geniuses ever satisfactorily answer the two questions any sane person will ask: “Will the president volunteer to resign, or will he be forced to do so? And, if the latter, who is going to do the forcing, and what will be the successful mechanism? Is it any different this time round? I do not think so. Those two questions still remain valid.

It is true that the president can do no right as far as our media is concerned. It is uniformly hostile. And that, to some extent, has been the case even since those early days of 2008 when Mr Zardari first unexpectedly rose to political power. Then it largely took the form of sullen silence or sceptical reticence. Today, the knives are out quite openly. Indeed, I sometimes get the impression — and it is a powerful one — that one particular media group is consciously embarked on a deliberate and sustained campaign to whip up public sentiment against the president, in whatever way it can.

This has two serious consequences. Firstly, there is the ‘follow the leader’ syndrome. When the most powerful media group in the country by far, takes up cudgels in this manner, the lesser players cannot afford to be left behind. For, there is nothing our public loves more than juicy political gossip. Secondly, when the result is that everyone ends up singing the same tune, our people, largely disinclined to use their own grey matter, treat as a fact what at best is media speculation and at worst wish fulfilling orchestrated rumour mongering. The recent furore over the Kerry-Lugar Bill (KLB) is a good example of what I am talking about here.

Serious consequences or not, politicians and others — and even the public — have to live stoically with this other side of the coin that is the precious democratic right of everyone to free speech. And that right extends to media groups, who have the freedom to air whatever politically partisan or otherwise biased and prejudiced views they choose to project.

That it is possible this freedom (like many others) is liable to abuse is never an argument to curtail it, except in so far as it is regulated by law. Nor is the fact that in our country anti-defamation laws against allegations and charges (often without due diligence), by individuals and state institutions, have proved ineffective, a good argument for using unorthodox means against this menace. Incidentally why are the defamation laws in our country so ineffective? Will the new judiciary do anything about this social evil now?

There is no option but to use sophisticated political means to counter those out to discredit you. But let us admit this is not either easy or simple. We all know the media thrives commercially on controversy and political and social campaigns that help boost audience ratings. If those choices are freely made I have no quibble, even though I may strongly disagree with the views projected. But sometimes the prima facie circumstantial evidence is too powerful and coincidental for a sane person to believe that that indeed is the case. Sometimes there is a powerful odour in the air of something more sinister afoot.

Media ethics is supposed to distinguish between paid advertisement and ‘news’ (and I include ‘opinion’ in the latter category). That, at least, is the theory, even though there is no escaping, anywhere, the phenomena of planted stories and ‘advertorials’ (for pay, or as a favour, or for a purpose). That our media today is freer than ever in our history is true enough, but has it completely shrugged off its past close affiliations with certain all-powerful elements of our permanent establishment? Of that the most charitable thing I will say is, “I am not so sure”.

One thing is for certain: the president will leave office only if he so wishes. And I see little evidence for that eventuality. Can he be forced out of office? On the past evidence we have of his implacable resolve in resisting pressure, only the alternatives of a military coup or impeachment will suffice. And neither is a realistic possibility at the moment.

What is more, it is my opinion that even a totally voluntary relinquishing of his office (let alone through any other method) will, for many obvious reasons, be a disastrous setback for the country’s fledgling democratic experiment. Heard the one about throwing the baby out along with the bathwater?

The writer is a businessman. A selection of his columns is now available in book form. Visit munirattaullah.com
Source

Read more...