Issue 51 Vol III, November 15, 2007

F O C U S

Pakistan: You can’t kill Journalism
Gobind Thukral

Pakistan’s ruling dictator cum President cum Army Chief Pervez Musharraf now fighting his last ditch battle has always claimed that he has been benevolent in granting press freedom despite martial law. He is unlike his predecessors, Zia-ul-Haq or Yahya Khan. He is a moderate like Mustafa Kemal Ataturk (1881-1938), the founder of the Turkish Republic.

But this claim is outrightly fake if we look at the events in Pakistan. Private television stations are off the air except two business channels. Protesting journalists along with the lawyers, civil society and human rights activists are in jail. Military has powers to hold anyone guilty and sentence long imprisonments.  An audacious Musharraf in his statement on state owned PTV claimed that he had allowed these channels to come up and therefore had the right to turn them off as well. Years of fighting by news organisations for their turn to participate in the satellite revolution that had marched into South Asia since the mid-1990s, once again experienced a setback.

What is more Musharraf on November 10 amended the Pakistan Army Act 1952 to empower the army to arrest, investigate and try civilians in a military court if they are found guilty of having committed a crime against defence, security or armed forces of Pakistan. A mere comment on president could lead to10 years in jail.

An ordinance promulgated with retrospective effect stated that crimes committed since January 1, 2003, will now be tried under the amended act. The civilians found guilty of having committed offences, which have been included in the Army Act with this amendment, will now be court marshaled. The crimes/offences, punishable under the Explosive Substances Act 1908, Prejudicial Conduct under Security of Pakistan Act 1952, Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965, Prevention of Anti-national Activities Act 1974 or Anti-terrorism Act 1997 and several sections of the Pakistan Penal Code or attempt to commit any of these offences, will now be tried under the act. It was not only that the Supreme Court judges were dismissed and put under house arrest, even lower judiciary was crippled. The military court has powers to try most of the crimes. Musharraf, Pakistan’s self styled Mustafa Ataturk declares “Emergency and these laws are essential to safe guard democracy, hold free and fair elections and save Pakistan from chaos”.

The way the officials of the Pakistan Media Regulatory Authority raided the Islamabad office of Aaj TV channel and seized live broadcast equipment without showing the required orders meant a clear message for all. In Lahore, Karachi, Islamabad and Quetta, protesting journalists were beaten and arrested.

Musharraf on November 3 promulgated two separate ordinances to impose curbs on print and electronic media. This amended the Press, Newspapers, News Agencies and Books Registration Ordinance, 2002, and the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority, 2002. Print and electronic media have been barred from printing and broadcasting "anything which defames or brings into ridicule the head of state, or members of the armed forces, or executive, legislative or judicial organ of the state".

Non-compliance of the new curbs is subject to discontinuation of newspaper publication for up to 30 days, and in case of television channels up to three years of jail and Rs10 million fine or both will be imposed on the broadcast media licensee or its representative and their equipment and premises will be forfeited. The restrictions were announced hours after several leading national and foreign news channels had been taken off air by cable operators.

A new section 5A has been inserted in the Press, Newspapers, News Agencies and Books Registration Ordinance to restrict publication of certain material. "No printer, publisher or editor shall print or publish" any material that consist of photographs of suicide bombers, terrorists (except required by the law-enforcement agencies for the purpose of investigation), bodies of victims of terrorist activities, statements and pronouncements of militants and extremist elements and any other thing, which may, in any way, promote aid or abet terrorist activities or terrorism, or their graphic and printed representation based on sectarianism and ethnicity or racialism.

The print media has also been restrained from publishing any material that is likely to jeopardise or be prejudicial to the ideology of Pakistan or the sovereignty, integrity or security of Pakistan, or any material that is likely to incite violence or hatred or create inter-faith disorder or be prejudicial to maintenance of law and order.

Similarly, section 20 of the Pemra Ordinance, 2002, has been amended to put a bar on TV channels to "broadcast video footage of suicide bombers, terrorists, bodies of victims of terrorism, statements and pronouncement of militants and extremist elements and any other act which may, in any way, promote aid or abet terrorist activities or terrorism". The anchors and moderators of the electronic media have been barred from hosting or propagating any opinion in any manner prejudicial to the ideology of Pakistan or sovereignty, integrity or security of Pakistan that incites violence or hatred or any action prejudicial to maintenance of law and order.

TV discussions on sub judice matters or anything which is known to be false or baseless or is mala fide or for which there exist sufficient reasons to believe that the same may be false, baseless or mala fide have also been banned.

It indeed is absurd to take to these draconian measures to black out media in this day and age of satellite television, Internet connectivity, and mobile telephony.  So there is no dearth of information emanating from Pakistan. Technology seems to be beating the dictator hallows. What is more the journalists are able to  report and write enough stuff  in daily newspapers to inform directly or indirectly what is going in the country. Foreign newscasters are more active and people in the urban Pakistan can at least access the Internet to keep themselves abreast with the developments.

There have been daily protests by the journalist’s community which has the support of the fraternal organisations worldwide all across Pakistan. If the owners and publishers are trying to save their skin by being on the right side of the military administration, the journalists are not shirking their responsibility.  21 journalists have been killed in Pakistan since Musharraf took over in a bloodless coup in 1999. "An explosion in the number of independent TV channels boosted pluralism and the quality of news," noted the media watchdog Reporters Without Borders (RSF) in its 2007 annual report. "But the security forces radicalised their methods of repression: a score of journalists were kidnapped and tortured by the military.’’

“The current enforcement of emergency rule in Pakistan is resulting in widespread violation of human rights through the mass arrest of lawyers, human rights and political activists, journalists and other professionals. Suppression of political activity and the abuse of human rights and democratic norms will not help attain the goal of eliminating terrorism,” the statement concluded.

An editorial in Pakistan’s leading daily, Dawn encapsulated the calamitous situation: "So we are back to square one. Back to Oct 12, 1999. All the gains over the years have gone down the drain. All this talk about the forward thrust towards democracy ... turned out to be one great deception." The struggle for free media as the South Asia Free Media Association noted   is far from over.

BACK

Pakistan-US-India triangle
Ishtiaq Ahmed

TWO major events have impacted profoundly on the balance of power in South Asia: the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the terrorist attacks on the United States in 2001. The balance of power in South Asia comprised primarily two rival states, India and Pakistan. India enjoyed the advantages of size -- population, territory and economy -- but after the nuclear blasts by both of them in May 1998, Pakistan could to a large extent neutralise that advantage by evolving the notion of a credible nuclear deterrent.

However, with India and the United States drawing closer to each other, with or without the controversial Nuclear Deal, Pakistan will have to reassess its defence strategy. While the India-Pakistan relationship remains a constant bad the relations between India and the United States and between Pakistan and the United States have changed dramatically. How this change in the triangle will affect the Pakistan-India relationship needs to be probed.

Although logically China should worry the Indian defence planners more than Pakistan, most of India's actual armed encounters have taken place with the latter. On the other hand, Pakistan's defence planning has always been based on the assumption that the main threat to its security comes from India. During the 1960s Pakistan worked out an understanding with PR China to offset the Indian preponderance in numbers.

Both states clashed over Kashmir in 1948 and then fought two wars in 1965 and 1971. These wars were fought in the background of an ongoing arms race between them. On 11 and 13 May 1998 India detonated altogether five nuclear devices. Pakistan followed suit a few days later with a series of six test explosions on 28 and 30 May. In May 1999, both sides fought a limited war at Kargil, which many feared could end in a nuclear confrontation. The confrontational approach came to a head when on December 13, 2001 some terrorists tried to enter the Indian Parliament to capture the legislators inside. India responded by sending a million soldiers to the international border with Pakistan and Pakistan order its own troops to it.

All-out war became a very grave possibility at that juncture, but international diplomacy with the US in the lead resulted in a climb down. Since then efforts to facilitate a dialogue between the two adversaries and persuade them to reach a negotiated settlement of their disputes has been supported by many international actors. The peace process has been moving forward slowly since then. Although there is reason for optimism it would be wrong to assert that relations between these two South Asian rivals have become normal.

On the other hand, relations between Pakistan and the United States have undergone considerable change. Pakistan began already in 1948 to seek closer relations with the USA. Later, it sought membership in the western defence pacts of CENTO and SEATO. Also, the Eisenhower-Dulles Doctrine of 1957, developed primarily for the Middle East to contain Soviet influence, was extended to other Muslim states and Pakistan became a close ally of the Americans. This resulted in massive inflows of weapons as well as development aid.

During the India-Pakistan War of 1965, however, the Americans made it clear that they would not support Pakistan's military adventure against India. The highpoint of Pakistan-US collaboration was the Afghan Jihad in which Pakistan played the role of the main frontline state against Soviet Communism. American-Saudi funding and military aid to Pakistan flowed in the plenty.

The collapse of the Soviet Union and the rise of militant Islam rendered Pakistan not only irrelevant in the fight against communism but also a possible bastion of anti-American Islamism. The 9/11 terrorist attack on the US dramatically changed US attitude about International Jihad. Even when Pakistan joined the war on terror it is no longer considered a strategic ally in the longer run.

On the other hand, in the post-Soviet period but especially after 9/11 the US and India have been drawn closer with an urgency. Previously the Congress Party used to tow a non-aligned policy and in various international conflicts tended to support Third World causes much to the chagrin of the Americans. The first change in the relationship took place at the time of the Sino-India border war of 1962. Nehru pleaded not only for American military aid but also intervention. As noted already in the 1965 India-Pakistan war the Americans told Pakistan that it would not get any help if it continued hostilities towards India.

As a major secular-democratic country in Asia India did enjoy admiration of the Americans, but their interests did not coincide until the fall of the Soviet Union removed the major impediment to their close relationship and combating international terrorism rendered their interests almost identical. Also, both India and the USA have a common interest in restricting Chinese influence in the region.

Under the circumstances it is inevitable that the Pakistan-USA-India triangle has altered significantly. The question now is: should Pakistan continue to probe ways and means of re-establishing the military balance of power with nuclear power? Can China be that ally? There is a long history of close relations between both countries and that relationship remains stable. However, the Chinese are not known to entering into military alliances with external powers. Some informal understanding between the two countries may take place to counter perceived Indian hegemony in South Asia. On the other hand, relations between India and China are improving quickly and that factor could also play a role in China not wanting to enter into a South Asian arms race.

One can also envisage that both India and the United States will make efforts to assuage Pakistan that their improving relationship, including the controversial nuclear deal that may eventually take place in some form is not directed against Pakistan's integrity and sovereignty. India may respond to Pakistani concerns by offering concessions on Kashmir that agrees to some formula of joint responsibility for Kashmir within the parameters of the Line of Control. India must consider such an approach seriously because its own rise as an economic power is dependent on peace with its neighbours, especially Pakistan. Equally, the United States will continue to need Pakistan to contain volatility on the Afghanistan border.

In the longer run, Pakistan will have to seek another rational basis for relations with India than one based on the notion of mutual destruction through nuclear warfare. If India does make reasonable concessions on Kashmir then it would be time to seek a relationship based on mutual economic cooperation and joint ventures that seek to enhance prosperity and development in both countries and in the South Asian region.

The author is a visiting senior research fellow at the Institute of South Asian Studies (ISAS), National University of Singapore on leave from the University of Stockholm, Sweden. Email: isasia@nus.edu.sg,
http://www.thenews.com.pk/print1.asp?id=79830

BACK

Musharraf attacks democracy in Pakistan
Swaraj Singh

Musharraf, the most important American ally against terrorism, attacked democracy in Pakistan. He showed that not only he has any respect for the democratic and judicial institutions but he also exposed the hypocrisy and double standards of the west as far as democracy and human rights are concerned. Musharraf has only one purpose that is to somehow cling to the power. The west wants to maintain its domination over the world at any cost.

Musharraf said that he imposed emergency to control terrorism. However, his biggest victim was the Supreme Court and the lawyers. Does that mean the Supreme Court and the judicial system in Pakistan support terrorism? The reason why he attacked the Supreme Court was that the court was going to decide about his election. He knew that the decision was most likely going against him. The heroic resistance he met from the court and the lawyers were exemplary.

Musharraf antagonized lot of people when he attacked the Red mosque. Now he has attacked the press, the media and the human rights activists. He was already one of the most unpopular persons in Pakistan. Now he has become the most hated person in Pakistan Imposing emergency showed his frustration and a defeatist mentality. The Pakistani army has been demoralized. Many soldiers have been kid napped by the militants. The militants attacked several elite facilities.

America had arranged an agreement between Musharraf and Benazir Bhutto. However, this emergency has torpedoed the agreement. Now Bhutto has to reconsider her options. Musharraf and Bhutto marginalized Nawaz Sharif before. However, now he has become an important player in the changing equations. Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif should try to free Pakistan from Musharraf.

Will America succeed in replacing Musharraf with another pro American leader, remains to be seen? Hoshni Mubark replaced Sadat in Egypt. However, he could never be as strong as Sadat. Similarly, the net result can be that relatively America is going to lose influence in Pakistan. America will find it difficult to maintain influence in any Islamic country.

BACK

Human Rights Watch lambastes Musharraf and Bush

Human Rights Watch, a New York based respected organisation finds queer relationship between the Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf and American president George W Bush and has challenged their democratic credentials. It called the Pakistan government to immediately release thousands of lawyers and opposition activists detained across the country in a crackdown after military ruler General Pervez Musharraf suspended the constitution and imposed a state of emergency on November 3. It said that it has credible reports from government officials requesting anonymity that bar association officials and lawyers have been mistreated in detention.

[The bars associations across Pakistan have lost their right to register and license lawyers and thus are now puny bodies without any rights.]

Human Rights Watch reiterated its call for Pakistan to immediately return to constitutional rule, restore fundamental rights and remove restrictions on the media. Human Rights Watch called for the United States and the United Kingdom, Musharraf's principal patrons, to impose comprehensive sanctions on all military and economic aid, with the exception of humanitarian aid. "The world is waiting to hear a clear statement from President Bush that, as in Burma recently, he will use all means at his disposal to reverse repression," said Adams. "The Bush administration must understand that the more Musharraf represses those peacefully opposed to him, the more he isolates himself and increases the unpopularity of the United States among Pakistanis."

Earlier Adams had said, "This is as big a test for the Bush administration as it is for Musharraf. Thus far, Washington's long support for a military government has merely led to an unprecedented political crisis that could lead Pakistan to disaster, not least in the effort to address international terrorism."

Since November 3, the police have violently suppressed peaceful protests by lawyers across Pakistan. Protests have taken place in the federal capital, Islamabad, the four provincial capital cities of Lahore, Peshawar, Karachi and Quetta, and in the city of Multan in southern Punjab. In each city, police have beaten protestors with batons and used tear gas to disperse them. Most of those detained are being held without charge. Hundreds of lawyers are being held under terrorism charges without any factual basis. Treason charges also have been instituted against some. Almost two-thirds of Pakistan's senior judges remain under house arrest.

Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch said,” While Musharraf is charging lawyers fighting for the rule of law as 'terrorists,' armed militants are increasing their stranglehold over northwestern Pakistan. By destabilizing the country with his naked power grab, Musharraf has alienated moderates and played into the hands of extremists. There can be no meaningful counterterrorism efforts until Musharraf restores constitutional rule and restores the judiciary."

Human Rights Watch expressed particular concern about the fate of the lawyers leading the movement for judicial independence that began on March 9, 2007, when Musharraf first tried to oust Supreme Court Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry. This group includes: Aitzaz Ahsan, president of the Supreme Court Bar Association; Ahsan's predecessor Munir Malik; retired Justice Tariq Mehmood; and, Ali Ahmed Kurd, a lawyer from Balochistan who has "disappeared" since he was allegedly picked up by security forces on November 3. While Ahsan is being held in solitary confinement in Rawalpindi Jail, the families and lawyers of the other three have not heard from nor been given access to them since they were detained. Rana Bhgwan Dass, the only Hindu judge of the Supreme Court who was second in seniority and refused to buckle is under house arrest.

Human Rights Watch has received credible reports that the Pakistani military’s feared Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) agency and Military Intelligence (MI) agency are jointly detaining and interrogating them. Both agencies have a well-documented history of "disappearances" and using torture against political opponents. Families throughout the country have had no access to the detained lawyers except in exceptional cases.

"Musharraf has defied domestic opinion and the international community by rounding up many of Pakistan's finest lawyers and subjecting them to solitary confinement and, very possibly, torture because they protested his ugly power grab," said Adams. "The past conduct of the security services leaves the world with no choice but to assume the worst about the fate of those being held incommunicado."

Asma Jahangir, a prominent lawyer, chairperson of the nongovernmental Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) and a United Nations Special Rapporteur, remains under house arrest in Lahore. Police raided and sealed HRCP offices in the southwestern city of Quetta on November 7.

Deposed Supreme Court Chief Justice Chaudhry has been held incommunicado since he addressed a gathering of lawyers via telephone on November 6. Chaudhry told the gathering that "the Constitution has been ripped to shreds" and urged lawyers to struggle "for the supremacy of the Constitution." The government jammed mobile telephone signals midway through the address. His family members have also been restricted to his residence. All members of the Supreme Court who refused to accept the legality of the state of emergency remain under house arrest.

Human Rights Watch called for the judges to be released immediately and restored to their posts. "The past year has seen a revolution in Pakistan as the judiciary fought successfully for its independence and held the government to account," said Adams. "Musharraf used Orwellian language when he said the state of emergency was to preserve the 'democratic transition.' What he really did was to end reform in a stroke of the pen."

Human Rights Watch also called for the release of hundreds of detained activists from the opposition Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) and the Islamist Jamaat-e-Islami parties rounded up in a bid to prevent protests and anti-government political mobilization. Scores of lawyers affiliated with the opposition Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) have also been arrested because of their association with the lawyers' movement to restore the constitution. Outside parliament in Islamabad on November 7, police tear-gassed and baton-charged dozens of PPP supporters at the PPP's first protest demonstration since the declaration of emergency rule.

Journalists attempting to cover the crackdown on the political opposition continue to be threatened, and all private and international television channels remain off the air.

BACK

South Asian Free Media Association Condemns Curbs on Media in Pakistan

THE South Asian Free Media Association (SAFMA) was shocked by the sudden and illegal detention of SAFMA founding Secretary General Imtiaz Alam in Lahore, Pakistan, on Monday November 5th, 2007.

We, the Presidents of all national SAFMA Chapters in Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, condemn the detention of Mr Alam for over 36 hours, without furnishing any charges and keeping him incommunicado without giving access to his legal attorney and his family.

We also note with concern the general adverse conditions for the Pakistani mass media under the enforcement of Emergency rule and urge the Government of Pakistan to refrain from attempting to muzzle the media of Pakistan and thereby deprive the citizens of their due right to information and facility of expression. We call on the Government of Pakistan to respect international standards of freedom of expression and information and media rights and, to desist from actions that suppress the functioning of media enterprises and channels.

The current enforcement of Emergency rule in Pakistan is resulting in the widespread violation of human rights through the mass arrests of lawyers, rights activists and political activists, and journalists and other professionals. Suppression of political activity and the abuse of human rights and democratic norms will not help attain the goal of eliminating terrorism.

The police kidnapped Imtiaz Alam during the morning hours on November 5, 2007 and kept him shifting from one police station to another.

Before his arrest, SAFMA Secretary General, Imtiaz Alam had condemned the proclamation of Emergency, suspension of constitution, sacking of the superior judiciary, issuance of the black media laws to muzzle both print and electronic media and had called for a joint struggle for the restoration of media freedom and fundamental rights in Pakistan.

On his release from illegal detention, the SAFMA Secretary General vowed to continue the struggle for a free press in Pakistan and thanked the media community and other friends who had put up tireless efforts to get his release.

He called upon the media community not to bog down under pressure and keep up its resolve to fight for the restoration of freedom of expression and press freedom in Pakistan.

The statement was signed by Lakshman Gunasekara, President of SAFMA and Presidents of SAFMA National Chapters Halim Fidai, SAFMA-Afghanistan, Reazuddin Ahmed, SAFMA Bangladesh,Gopilal Acharya, SAFMA Bhutan, K. K. Katyal, SAFMA-India, Ameenath Najeeb, SAFMA-Maldives, Gopal Thapaliya, SAFMA Nepal and Nusrat Javeed, SAFMA-Pakistan.

BACK