Home Blog Page 81

PTI Seminar on Health Policy Vision…!

0

Moeed Pirzada | FB Blog |

PTI Seminar on Health Policy VisionTI Seminar on Health Policy Vision: I did attend the Seminar at Marriott, Islamabad. It is certainly a historic moment in Pakistan’s political history when a major political party, or any party for that purpose, for the first time has placed a Health Policy of any sort before public, media and its opponents for debate & dissection. I hope and I expect that this first move will encourage or force other major parties like PPP & Allies, PMLN and MQM to come forward with their own Health Policy Agendas… if that happened and lead to an inter-party debate on Health Policy then we will start to enter the second half of 20th Century at least… Event was very well attended with large Marquee Hall brimming with civil society and media; I counted 24 TV cameras in a row behind the audience and dozens of reporters beaming around; but will this make a difference? lets address this question…

I have a hard copy with me, and I am sure all of you can access the soft copy at PTI website. This is a well thought out document that begins by analyzing Pakistan’s current Health challenges with widespread malnutrition and communicable diseases, high infant & maternal mortality rates, expanding population and poor sanitation standards all compounded by a Health system that suffers from malfunction and bad governance at all levels and is basically geared to serve elite at the expense of teeming millions…for instance PTI claims that rich Pakistanis each year spend a gigantic amount of money abroad for treatment, bigger than all health budgets of Pakistan; how have they found it out? I am not sure but this is their claim…

PTI has outlined a Five Point Agenda: 1): Paradigm Shift towards Preventive Healthcare through action and Awareness; 2)- Complete Decentralization and De-politicization of Health governance; 3)- Prioritize Primary Health Care with focus on Mother & Child Care & School Health Care; 4)- Develop a reliable & Integrated Health Information System for evidence based planning and decision making; 5)- Increase Public Health Funding from 0.8% to 2.6% of GDP ie from Rs. 165 billion today to Rs. 1260 billion in Year 5.

Policy is sound; has a huge input from doctors and other health professionals of Pakistan Medical Association (PMA); has been lead by Jehangir Tareen and since I am a medical doctor to begin with, I can see a very rational and pragmatic professional approach; however it is basically goals and aspirations or desires developed from the input of medical profession; such knowledge has always been available to the provincial governments and we need to compare it with the on-ground challenges faced by governments for instance Punjab where Shahbaz Sharif has worked hard over the last 4 years to improve things; we need to know what actually fails the delivery. PTI is right in declaring that the main challenge is to improve the Health sector governance, however how PTI will be able to do it, is far from clear…? I asked Imran that when he says that we will raise Health spending from 0.8% to 2.6% of GDP, how will he do it? because in west political parties come up with precise sector wise analysis of the economy and budget allocations and then explain that how they will mobilize funds (from say Defense or say boost exports etc…) he asked Asad Omar to explain, who argued that they will save 5% by cutting losses in public utilities, boost exports and some other things; I am hopeful that PTI will give us more details, because the devil lies in details; once we start debating numbers then other parties will need to jump in; politics will start to move to the real issues; at the moment it’s is easy to say that we will do this for Health and that for Education and such and such for Environment and Energy but how will you do it is the real question and debate…?

Nevertheless it is a big step in Pakistani politics; and I am hopeful that PPP and PMLN will follow suit by coming up with their own health Policies….Amen! Many other members of this page like Dr. Salman Younas for instance were present there; he and others should share their experiences….Welcome to a New Pakistan!

Pakistani Muslims attitude towards Ahmediya/Qadyanis is disgusting…!

Moeed Pirzada |

@Ashutosh and all those who have read his questions and comments in an earlier post: – You are right; Pakistani Muslims attitude towards Ahmediya/Qadyanis is disgusting; all what happened to this “Punjabi community” is a symptom of the inward looking backwardness and narrowness of the Pakistani society; we started by persecuting Qadyanis and ended up with Shia/Sunni; and we are paying a price for the hatreds we ignited, genies are out dancing on our streets every day; but then there are scores of Pakistanis who openly condemn that; read Express Tribune columns, stories and comments during the recent events; in college in Lahore I have been beaten and threatened for raising my voice to stop Jammati boys beating young Qadyani students; I used to do a program from London and one member of this page – Pheobe Afrin – has been a viewer since then; I always used to condemn acts of violence against Qadyanis or Christians; so much so that I used to receive hate mail from die hard conservatives; it was always a live program that took phone calls and many times people called to condemn me and express hatred as a “Qadyani” which is considered utmost insult in this difficult society for someone who is a Sunni & Syed; within Pakistan no tv person is more deeply engaged with the diplomatic community so they started calling me an American stooge; I interacted a lot with Indian diplomats so that became a problem and agencies suspected me and harassed me and trust me that is not easy to deal with; I have never mentioned this before (because it’s a fashion in Pakistan to declare threats to seek importance) that how many times I receive hate calls, text messages, letters; how many times I have been harassed by all those of all shades of opinion that disagree.

what disappoints me is that how genuinely illiberal the west is? they are just wearing a mask and thin veneer on their faces, like the old Venetian masks..like in the movie, “Eyes Wide Shut”.

Or I have to lie low to avoid trouble; read what many wrote on these pages when I requested Indians to tell us about being a Hindu; and I am not alone there are many like me; take the example of all those who have raised their voice against blasphemy laws or in the Rimsha case- which after all are laws of the land – and by morning you will see hundreds of those condemning Bilour’s irresponsible bluff about the film maker; and we live in a poor developing country where dissent is more difficult and cumbersome; in all this context what surprises me is the total inability of Non-Muslims -especially the Christians in this case – to rise above their “narrow identities” to understand and reflect that how much pure hatred has been created and is being spread because of the actions of people inside America and how no important personality has taken a position on this issue; I am not sure but I think even Pope and Vatican who keep on lecturing Muslim countries like Pakistan continuously are silent; US congressman and senators? writers? film makers? columnists? intellectuals? human right activists?

Read more: How do you know if I am an extremist or a moderate?

The essence of Liberalism lies in an intellectual ability to rise above the majoritarian prejudices; liberalism is not being pro-west, or drinking alcohol or eating pork; all these could be symptoms of being mentally free and “liberated” from the control of the majority and thus the word: liberated; what disappoints me is that how genuinely illiberal the west is? they are just wearing a mask and thin veneer on their faces, like the old Venetian masks..like in the movie, “Eyes Wide Shut”.

it was always a live program that took phone calls and many times people called to condemn me and express hatred as a “Qadyani” which is considered utmost insult in this difficult society for someone who is a Sunni & Syed

My problem is that I have studied, lived, worked and traveled extensively in the west and all my sources of information are English or American and I know how they are disguising their hatred under the garb of laws and regulations…and my problem is that whereas I am more post-religion than most Americans and Europeans are but I respect all religions for all religions have been attempts to connect with divinity, with a higher being, I respect all religions for without understanding them you cannot understand man kind and its issues, its fears, insecurities and without respecting all religions you cannot build a better world when we have – due to technology- become so close to each other; do I know that you exist? you could be an electronic imagination; you could exist anywhere on this blue planet and yet we are all connected through a page in virtual reality….that is what the problem is; you said what I want? I hope to see the same reaction of “genuinely liberated souls” the way we see in Pakistani English papers against the biases of “majoritarian view” and unfortunately despite more than 60 people dead in several Muslim countries there is no real voice of dissent inside the US.

I am not naive to expect that a solution would have emerged suddenly; but there is no feeling, no empathy, no human bond, nothing…and that frightens me…and you know why? because they are not really “post-religion”; they think they are but in reality they are unable to rise above their narrow identities; it’s like in Pakistan where everyone who drinks scotch or is craving sex in the name of love/friendship thinks that he is liberated; in reality one cannot be liberal without rising above one’s core sets of prejudices.

 

Moeed Pirzada is prominent TV Anchor & commentator; he studied international relations at Columbia Univ, New York and law at London School of Economics. Twitter: MoeedNj. The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Global Village Space’s editorial policy. This piece was first published in Moeed Pirzada’s official page. It has been reproduced with permission.

Pakistani Muslims attitude towards Ahmediya/Qadyanis is disgusting…!

1

Moeed Pirzada | FB Blog |

@Ashutosh and all those who have read his questions and comments in an earlier post: – You are right; Pakistani Muslims attitude towards Ahmediya/Qadyanis is disgusting; all what happened to this “punjabi community” is a symptom of the inward looking backwardness and narrowness of the Pakistani society; we started by persecuting Qadyanis and ended up with Shia/Sunni; and we are paying a price for the hatreds we ignited, genies are out dancing on our streets every day; but then there are scores of Pakistanis who openly condemn that; read Express Tribune columns, stories and comments during the recent events; in college in Lahore I have been beaten and threatened for raising my voice to stop Jammati boys beating young Qadyani students; I used to do a program from London and one member of this page – Pheobe Afrin – has been a viewer since then; I always used to condemn acts of violence against Qadyanis or Christians; so much so that I used to receive hate mail from die hard conservatives; it was always a live program that took phone calls and many times people called to condemn me and express hatred as a “Qadyani” which is considered utmost insult in this difficult society for someone who is a Sunni & Syed; within Pakistan no tv person is more deeply engaged with the diplomatic community so they started calling me an American stooge; I interacted a lot with Indian diplomats so that became a problem and agencies suspected me and harassed me and trust me that is not easy to deal with; I have never mentioned this before (because it’s a fashion in Pakistan to declare threats to seek importance) that how many times I receive hate calls, text messages, letters; how many times I have been harassed by all those of all shades of opinion that disagree.

Or I have to lie low to avoid trouble; read what many wrote on these pages when I requested Indians to tell us about being a Hindu; and I am not alone there are many like me; take the example of all those who have raised their voice against blasphemy laws or in the Rimsha case- which after all are laws of the land – and by morning you will see hundreds of those condemning Bilour’s irresponsible bluff about the film maker; and we live in a poor developing country where dissent is more difficult and cumbersome; in all this context what surprises me is the total inability of Non-Muslims -especially the Christians in this case – to rise above their “narrow identities” to understand and reflect that how much pure hatred has been created and is being spread because of the actions of people inside America and how no important personality has taken a position on this issue; I am not sure but I think even Pope and Vatican who keep on lecturing Muslim countries like Pakistan continuously are silent; US congressman and senators? writers? film makers? columnists? intellectuals? human right activists?

The essence of Liberalism lies in an intellectual ability to rise above the majoritarian prejudices; liberalism is not being pro-west, or drinking alcohol or eating pork; all these could be symptoms of being mentally free and “liberated” from the control of the majority and thus the word: liberated; what disappoints me is that how genuinely illiberal the west is? they are just wearing a mask and thin veneer on their faces, like the old Venetian masks..like in the movie, “Eyes Wide Shut”.

My problem is that I have studied, lived, worked and traveled extensively in the west and all my sources of information are English or American and I know how they are disguising their hatred under the garb of laws and regulations…and my problem is that whereas I am more post-religion than most Americans and Europeans are but I respect all religions for all religions have been attempts to connect with divinity, with a higher being, I respect all religions for without understanding them you cannot understand man kind and its issues, its fears, insecurities and without respecting all religions you cannot build a better world when we have – due to technology- become so close to each other; do I know that you exist? you could be an electronic imagination; you could exist anywhere on this blue planet and yet we are all connected through a page in virtual reality….that is what the problem is; you said what I want? I hope to see the same reaction of “genuinely liberated souls” the way we see in Pakistani English papers against the biases of “majoritarian view” and unfortunately despite more than 60 people dead in several Muslim countries there is no real voice of dissent inside the US.

I am not naive to expect that a solution would have emerged suddenly; but there is no feeling, no empathy, no human bond, nothing…and that frightens me…and you know why? because they are not really “post-religion”; they think they are but in reality they are unable to rise above their narrow identities; it’s like in Pakistan where everyone who drinks scotch or is craving sex in the name of love/friendship thinks that he is liberated; in reality one cannot be liberal without rising above one’s core sets of prejudices.

Our cell phones have been switched off; apparently to prevent miscreants to communicate with each other to create wider violence…!

Moeed Pirzada |

Since 10 am this morning, our cell phones have been switched off; apparently to prevent miscreants to communicate with each other to create wider violence; result, however, is that I cannot invite guests for my evening show since we have lost the habit of using landlines and we don’t even have land line numbers of most people..I had to talk to my lawyer for a court hearing but can’t; I am doing a consulting project but cannot reach my team members… meanwhile, I am looking at the bizarre scenes of loot and arson by mobs consisting of very young kids – sometimes as young as 8 or 9 – they are attacking cinemas and video shops; police is over-stretched to the point of losing all control except strong presence across diplomatic buildings…. it is obvious that situation in Pakistan has transformed itself into something different; it’s no more about the “film” and that idiot who made it or was persuaded by some “mastermind” to make it… At this moment it is the situation in Pakistan that should concern us; it’s the responsibility of all educated aware citizens like yourself to do some “audit’ and “soul-searching” on what things have become and why we need to learnt to protest in different ways.

Read more: Why Your Smartphone Is Creating a Civil Rights Issue

it is obvious that situation in Pakistan has transformed itself into something different; it’s no more about the “film” and that idiot who made it or was persuaded by some “mastermind” to make it… At this moment it is the situation in Pakistan that should concern us; it’s the responsibility of all educated aware citizens like yourself to do some “audit’ and “soul-searching” on what things have become and why we need to learnt to protest in different ways.

I understand people when angry must be allowed to protest, and protests can become wild and violent in developing countries; also I think governments are faced with a political situation in which “right wing religious parties” are exploiting the film issue to empower themselves and push the politics to the right; secular parties like PPP, PMLN, PTI and MQM are thus fear losing space; I have seen many reasonable politicians saying film maker is “wajib-ul-qatal” on tv and I know them intimately and I know that they are only saying this because of the fear of their religious minded constituents; but all this has created a totally new situation; I am not absolving the US government for failing in their responsibilities, they could have shown a more robust action against the film maker and it would have helped across the Muslim world but then they too have their right wingers, secular fanatics and Islam haters who would pounce upon the Obama Administration the moment it would be seen sympathetic to Muslim concerns…but leave all this aside for a moment and just look at the “style of protests” Why protests means attacking video shops and cinemas? beating anyone who is not willing to walk along? why throw stones? I wonder why district governments and the leaders of the protests – especially when the governments have welcomed protests- could not agree on large grounds & squares as venues, where leaders could deliver speeches, public can shout, resolutions could be passed and tv cameras can cover and do spot interviews? why not provide water bottles for the thirsty and religious poetry in the praise of Prophet be played in the background?

Please join me in spreading this message across that protests too can bring a more humane face of an angry and hurt people…I did not hear any Naat-e-Rasool; some of them are so powerful that they move the soul irrespective of any religion and language; why violence? why not sing and recite to remember the great man whose memory unites us and in whose name we protest? why not remember how many enemies he forgave and how he united everyone instead of dividing?

 

Moeed Pirzada is prominent TV Anchor & commentator; he studied international relations at Columbia Univ, New York and law at London School of Economics. Twitter: MoeedNj. The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Global Village Space’s editorial policy. This piece was first published in Moeed Pirzada’s official page. It has been reproduced with permission.

Our cell phones have been switched off; apparently to prevent miscreants to communicate with each other to create wider violence…!

0

Moeed Pirzada | FB Blog |

Since 10am this morning, our cell phones have been switched off; apparently to prevent miscreants to communicate with each other to create wider violence; result however is that I cannot invite guests for my evening show since we have lost the habit of using landlines and we don’t even have land line numbers of most people..I had to talk to my lawyer for a court hearing but cann’t; I am doing a consulting project but cannot reach my team members… meanwhile I am looking at the bizarre scenes of loot and arson by mobs consisting of very young kids – sometimes as young as 8 or 9 – they are attacking cinemas and video shops; police is over-stretched to the point of losing all control except strong presence across diplomatic buildings…. it’s is obvious that situation in Pakistan has transformed itself into something different; it’s no more about the “film” and that idiot who made it or was persuaded by some “mastermind” to make it… At this moment it is the situation in Pakistan that should concern us; it’s the responsibility of all educated aware citizens like yourself to do some “audit’ and “soul-searching” on what things have become and why we need to learnt to protest in different ways..

I understand people when angry must be allowed to protest, and protests can become wild and violent in developing countries; also I think governments are faced with a political situation in which “right wing religious parties” are exploiting the film issue to empower themselves and push the politics to the right; secular parties like PPP, PMLN, PTI and MQM are thus fear losing space; I have seen many reasonable politicians saying film maker is “wajib-ul-qatal” on tv and I know them intimately and I know that they are only saying this because of the fear of their religious minded constituents; but all this has created a totally new situation; I am not absolving the US government for failing in their responsibilities, they could have shown a more robust action against the film maker and it would have helped across the Muslim world but then they too have their right wingers, secular fanatics and Islam haters who would pounce upon the Obama Administration the moment it would be seen sympathetic to Muslim concerns…but leave all this aside for a moment and just look at the “style of protests” Why protests means attacking video shops and cinemas? beating anyone who is not willing to walk along? why throw stones? I wonder why district governments and the leaders of the protests – especially when the governments have welcomed protests- could not agree on large grounds & squares as venues, where leaders could deliver speeches, public can shout, resolutions could be passed and tv cameras can cover and do spot interviews? why not provide water bottles for the thirsty and religious poetry in the praise of Prophet be played in the background?

Please join me in spreading this message across that protests too can bring a more humane face of an angry and hurt people…I did not hear any Naat-e-Rasool; some of them are so powerful that they move the soul irrespective of any religion and language; why violence? why not sing and recite to remember the great man whose memory unites us and in whose name we protest? why not remember how many enemies he forgave and how he united everyone instead of dividing?

It’s clear that Hindus don’t see any boundaries of their faith and I guess there won’t be a concept of ex-communication…!

0

Moeed Pirzada | FB Blog |

Hi! thanks to all Hindu members of this Forum who have take time and effort to write detailed paras to let us understand how they see their faith and its evolution in modern times. I cannot thank everyone separately but let me add that I read comments of Rit Chandra, Santosh Tripathi, Karan Ch, Praveen Kumar, Ashutosh Anand, Sameer Virmani, Vicky Sindhu and Amit Jacques Soofi with interest..I am still reading others! It’s clear that Hindus don’t see any boundaries of their faith and I guess there won’t be a concept of ex-communication which also becomes apparent from the diverse nature of responses, because many responses – though so well written – are so different from each other that in another religious community will lead to a blood bath but apparently there is a quiet acceptability of differences from each other in terms of approaching the ‘dharma’..and that may be the strength that helps in interacting with a fast changing world and fast integrating global village; something which should be very educative for other members of this page.

I have been reading off and on about Hinduism; but we seldom get to interact with Hindus on an extended period and like languages – I tried learning French in Lahore, New York and London and Spanish in New York but forgot soon without practice- you lose sense of things without repeat inter-action; my maximum exposure was during my stay in the beautiful town of Austin, in Texas which was perhaps one of the biggest campus of Indo-Pakistani communities and I guess still is; and I happened to attend colorful festivals like “Ras & Gharba” which were amazing… during that time period I got to read one book, that was neither academic nor historical but instead a travelogue by as of then an unknown American graduate of Yale University – Jonah Blank- who had traveled from one end of India to the other, tracing the mythical journey of Rama when he chased Rawan to rescue Sita…that book, a travelogue was “Arrow of the Blue Skinned God” …Jonah Blank keeps on traveling in modern India of 1990’s but with every new destination he takes us back to the ancient world of Rama and his journey….most other books I have forgotten but this one has stuck, and if you get the opportunity then you must read it…

I must apologize for some of the rude responses from a tiny minority of Pakistani members of this page; fearing this I had requested all that let this post be “Only and Only for Hindus”..and I guess one cannot be more clear than this; but having said this, I am glad that most respondents were not ‘disrespectful’ and many decided to ignore rude comments from each other; so in the end there was a kind of interaction and understanding…To all those who wrote “rude comments” I must say that we the Muslims are the most sensitive about “negative comments” about our faith, from anyone but we often forget the sayings of Prophet who admonished abusing other’s faith “for they will then foul mouth your faith”

For a better future in South Asia, and all around us, it’s important for all of us to understand where we are coming from? we need to appreciate each other’s religions, conventions and historical narratives; only then can we understand what are the sensitivities and why? let me conclude by adding that most of the world, across different religions fail to understand the Muslim sensitivities towards Prophet Muhammad because when they reflect inside their range of experiences they don’t find a parallel; this is because the way other great religions – including Christianity evolved – there did not exist a central defining character in the way it was in Islam and still is; some of us will remember that British colonizers had often referred to Indian Muslims as “Muhammadans”…

Any way let me conclude; by now the controversy raging across Middle East has taken a totally different dimension; three days ago on Friday I went to a dinner where I met a select group of executives – most of whom were either educated in the US or had sustained professional exposures inside the US – and some of them were concerned that this Gas station owner in California who has turned into a film maker on Islam, thanks to $5 million of donations, looks like a suspicious buffoon who has been set up by a “master mind” and the objective is to dent Obama at a time when his national security policies are his strong point. I laughed at the speculations as “conspiracy theories”…especially since the insinuation was towards Israelis trying to influence the US Elections…..however I am posting a detailed piece from New York Times (US is preparing for a Long Seige of Arab Unrest) that explains that how Obama’s re-election campaign is suddenly in trouble because of the images pouring in from Middle East and from around the world…keep in mind that half the right wing America still suspects that Obama is either a Muslim or Muslim sympathizer… that shouldn’t surprise anyone because at least 33% of the members of this Forum at any time keep on suspecting me to be an American Agent, a Qadyani, an ISI stooge, a Christian sympathizer, a Raw Agent, an Atheist, Zaid Hamid type fundo and I guess now in the last 24 hours a secret Hindu…fortunately that 33% keeps on changing with every post…

Loose Pillar

0

Moeed Pirzada | PIQUE |

The struggle for the soul of Pakistani media has entered a very interesting phase. “Law of Unintended Consequences” is following its own logic. Someone had thought the media could be easily used to destroy the Supreme Court but now it looks like as if the apex court is being beseeched and pleaded to breathe a new life in media that has landed in intensive care; weak and febrile, gasping for oxygen of legitimacy. In the last one month, two interesting petitions, with varying levels of public interest and synergy, have landed in the court, one jointly from Pakistan Broadcasters Association, Independent Media Corporation (parent body of Geo TV) and Jang group and the second from two prominent anchor persons, Hamid Mir and Absar Alam.

In addition two other interesting developments have happened: Geo has refurbished and re-launched its detailed Code of Conduct, called as Geo Asool and Dunya TV has also hurriedly created its own code of conduct. For someone, who initially came up with the idea of a National Media Commission these petitions are deeply gratifying. It was on 15th June, in Nadeem Malik’s programme at Aaj TV that I had proposed — while participating in the discussion along with Talat Hussain — the idea that the Supreme Court should not just review the Dunya TV show that triggered the debate but should go ahead and establish a National Media Commission.

Though my idea of the commission was altogether different — more broad based and holistic, these petitions nevertheless are a living proof, if one was needed, that ideas have a strange way of travelling onwards and becoming material realities. Both petitions have their strong points and both suffer from serious limitations. Jang & Geo petition affirms a certain ‘umbilical cord’ relationship between media and the judiciary. Over the past several months, Geo group has been endlessly criticized, and not without reason, for flirting with the courts and taking an unusually strong position against the elected government but there is a history and a psychology behind that.

Some top decision makers in the Jang group stung hard by the events had reflected long ago that without the presence of a strong and assertive judiciary on their side, the executive will never let the media function as it should and this belief was reinforced during the events of 2007. So this apparent policy that has emerged as a centerpiece of the media and politics since the elections of 2008 has deep roots in the politics of late Nineties when the Nawaz Sharif government and Jang group fought a pitched battle. It is perhaps because of this peculiar background that Jang and Geo petition has a very narrow focus; it smacks of partisanship against certain channels getting perceived benefits from the authorities and is reeking with grievances against the government.

The petition by Hamid Mir and Absar Alam is much more detailed, nuanced and touches upon certain fundamental principles of law and justice. But unfortunately this petition spends far too much time and energy in demanding court intervention against flimsy charges leveled by anonymous enemies which deprives it from the overarching public interest it could have inspired otherwise. After all, the Supreme Court is an apex national institution of immense significance and to expect that judges should give their precious time — which is public asset — and attention to help individual anchors or media persons to clear their name from accusations leveled by their enemies is not very persuasive.

While disposing off the suo moto action in the case involving the allegations of Malik Riaz against Dr. Arsalan when Supreme Court directed the Attorney General to investigate it also lay down the principle that a constitutional court is not attracted into the disputes of private nature between citizens. So this principle in a broad sense will also make it difficult for the court to get into the merits or demerits of the anonymous allegations against media persons. But irrespective of these failings these two petitions have raised at least four important issues: role of advertisements in influencing media and its policies; presence of secret funding for media; political and economic linkages of the media owners; and the need for an effective freedom of Information Act, the kind of which now exists in India.

Jang & Geo petition laments the use of government advertisement, its distribution to channels ignoring the market share of those channels and demands an audit for the advertisement policy. The second petition also focuses on this aspect; this is a common theme between the two petitions. But unfortunately, both are only protesting the use of advertisement funds by the government and there is no mention of how and on what considerations private corporate bodies decide the use of their advertisement outlays. This is probably because of the fact that such activity, choices and decisions are considered strictly private, and not part of the public domain. However, this is something that needs some reflection and this piece intends to deal with this issue.

Though both petitions refer to the influence of Secret Funds but it is the anchor’s petition that brings the heat on this issue. It will be interesting to see whether court demands the government to divulge the information about the secret funds — for instance, how much has been spent by the Ministry of Information under Secret Funds in the last 23 years since the end of Zia’s Martial law? Who in the Pakistani media has benefitted from such secret funds? And to what tune? Even more interesting will be to see on what grounds an elected government working inside the framework of a robust democracy will be able to defend the use of “Secret Funds” to influence political dice inside the domestic economy?

But then these peculiarities have to be understood in their own context; both petitions are coming from the prism of who is pleading. Jang & Geo petition reflects the biases of Pakistan’s leading agenda setting media house and thus reflects its rancour against the government and the anchor’s petition reflects the perspective of working journalists who are angry on being targeted by vested interests, by media owners and by the government.

Though admittedly the anchors’ petition has much more depth; it references towards Article 19A of the constitution and the public’s right to information and its repeated argument that people of Pakistan deserve more than a “vegetative existence” are powerful expressions. But all said and done, these petitions still lack the overall holistic approach that is needed at the level of an apex institution like  Supreme Court that is mandated to think in the interest of the larger state and society and has limitations in terms of allowing its platform to be available for settling scores for one or the other side. What Supreme Court needs to do at this stage of a critically ill Pakistani media is to create a broad based National Media Commission. Such a commission should invite all stake holders that include: media owners, advertisers, government agencies, political parties, cable distributors, academics and prominent journalists of both print and electronic media. Specific issues of government advertisements and use of secret funds are important because both, especially the latter, represent serious distortion in the working of an independent market place of ideas.

Similarly, the lack of a functional Freedom of Information Act and economic and political linkages between governments and the media houses are problems but a commission appointed by the Supreme Court needs to take a holistic approach to understand how this market place of ideas is being developed and shaped; what have been the international experiences and how similar crises of institutional failure have been resolved? Government mismanagement and partisanship as is generally talked about is only a part of this broader picture. One important question National Media Commission ought to ask the advertisers and corporate bodies is that what are their advertisement policies? How they make these decisions? Are they only relying upon ratings that reflect majoritarian taste or do they have certain other criteria?

This is an area where civil society groups, NGOs and all those citizens who are concerned about the falling standards of media content can play a powerful role by lobbying the corporate bodies and their managements that have been feeding the frenzy of majoritarian taste without ever reflecting on its consequences for the state and society. This represents the crucial nexus of ethics and economics and yet has been least debated. But all debate will remain inconclusive without addressing the future of state broadcasters. National Media Commission will have to address some very difficult and tedious  questions: Should there be a state broadcaster in this day and age? Pakistani governments have been charging a compulsory license fee from every household through electricity billing to run a state broadcaster which does little more than government controlled propaganda and is increasingly watched by less and less Pakistani viewers; how can governments justify partisan propaganda and bill the public through compulsory instruments?

Commission needs to enquire: how can “State Broadcaster” be turned into a “Public Broadcaster” which is the norm now across developed world?; how case studies on BBC and other European broadcaster’s legal models and Charters offer policy solutions for making PTV & Radio Pakistan autonomous?; why establishing PTV as a bench mark medium, as a standard bearer of “public interest” — like BBC in the UK — is must for the reform of Pakistani media; and how that is possible by building awareness and consensus around certain policy reforms? Finally, the commission needs to grapple with a most basic question: Is media a private space or a public sphere? Members of this commission  and its interlocutors will benefit tremendouslyby reading the works of contemporary German philosopher Habermas, who had distinguished between the private space of business and public sphere of intellectuals.

He had argued that public sphere is a space independent of both the government and the business and the independence and integrity of public sphere is a must for democracy to flourish. But if Pakistani media is a public sphere then how come it is being run as a private space, with all family owned business houses relying upon ratings from a private company to determine the nature of content as they deem fit without any transparency, oversight and questions from anyone? And this is a media content that deeply impacts upon Pakistani state, society and its foreign relations; how can there be so much power without any responsibility? Professor James Curran’s famous question that became the title of his bestselling book may haunt Pakistan Media Commission; will they find an answer?

Pakistani Media in the Dock

0

Moeed Pirzada | Newsline |

The staged interview of Malik Riaz was no doubt a shock. The furious debate that has raged across Pakistani society is understandable. Politicians, civil society leaders, academia, social media communities and housewives are all livid. The media has conducted programmes, think tanks have organised seminars and courts are contemplating action. This robust, soul-searching certainly serves the purpose of underscoring the ugliness of what happened and the sense of betrayal that has been felt. The need to do something about it is now paramount. However, with due apology, this commotion reeks of the fruitless debate in which the Pakistani media specialises.

Over the years the Pakistani media has gradually lost touch with its ‘raison d’étre.’ On account of the manner in which things are shaped – with colourful anchors, powerful seths, mysterious rating meters and secret pay-offs that accompany them – we have forgotten that the basic purpose of news and current affairs programming is not to churn out juicy entertainment, but to deliver information in the public interest. The Pakistani current affairs cabal specialises in debates comprising, strong opinions, biliary reactions and scandalous revelations, that almost always end up without any conclusions, without the viewers emerging any wiser. The bottom line is that we have no solutions and we are not interested in finding any.

And that is why the recent debate hosted by Dunya TV anchors, Mehr Bokhari and Mubashar Lucman frightened me. It had an eerie resemblance to the format most anchors rely upon. Newspaper columns and think-tank seminars are not doing any better. For instance, to suggest that journalists need capacity-building is similar to the argument that doctors, who were caught stealing kidneys from their patients, need to be trained better. These and many other such pusillanimous arguments, which I have heard over the last few days, are based on a dangerous misunderstanding of what is happening in the Pakistani media.

All those who seriously want to reform the Pakistani media and preserve this public space in the state and society’s larger interest, and in the interest of their children, need to focus on the following six areas: the economic structure of the Pakistani media; the absence of an editorial layer between the seth and the screen; the future of state broadcasters like PTV and Radio Pakistan; the inability of PEMRA to act as an autonomous regulator; the influence of ratings from a single mysterious ratings agency and the lack of social responsibility on the part of corporate advertisers.

While all citizens have the right and the duty to grapple with these tedious questions, I believe the Supreme Court of Pakistan should appoint a national media commission to look into these issues. While disposing of the suo moto action regarding the allegations of business deals between Malik Riaz and Dr Arsalan, the court observed: “The series of events which comprise the run-up to this suo moto case also raise concerns about issues of media law and ethics.”

After the bombshell of the staged interview on Dunya TV, Pakistan’s apex court ordered the PEMRA chairman to submit a report. It also appointed a two-member committee comprising Justice Jawad Khawaja and Justice Khilji Arif Hussain to ascertain facts. But it shouldn’t just stop there. It is time to broaden the focus and create a commission with a combination of judges and eminent media experts like Javed Jabbar to examine the fundamental issues surrounding the Pakistani media and develop a framework of recommendations that will help governments, the media and the civil society to think clearly.

Let’s begin by asking a basic question: what is the economic structure of the Pakistani media? And what is its relationship with Pakistani politics? Why do several TV channels continue to invest in their loss-making ventures and what do they gain in return? Has a media regulator or any state agency looked into this in the past few years? What seems to emerge is a pattern where neo-capitalists appear to be using TV channels to undermine and capture state authority by a cocktail of intimidating threats and cajoling favours for their own entrenched economic interests. But a deeper examination by the commission may reveal more interesting facts.

And this is not restricted just to Dunya TV. Malik Riaz’s staged interview revealed that there may be no real genuine editorial layer between the seth and the screen. Unfortunately, the malaise is much deeper and widespread. It appears that news and current affairs directors in most channels are merely figureheads. In reality the seth, in his need for greater control, continues to undermine the authority of what he parades as his editorial team. This brings us to a provocative set of questions: who in Pakistan is exercising freedom of expression guaranteed under article 19 of the constitution and under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? The seth or the journalists working for him?

The question that must be asked is, what kind of space is the Pakistani media operating in? Is it a private space governed by seths and private limited companies, who argue that their fortunes and thus behaviors and strategies are dependent upon a private ratings agency? Or is it a public space that belongs to the citizens of Pakistan as a ‘marketplace of ideas,’ as argued by John Stuart Mill? As we search for the answer, it becomes visible that the media impacts politics, society, governance, economic policies and foreign policy. And for all practical purposes it is a public space. But seths and their private limited companies govern it in the most opaque fashion with the help of a private ratings agency, without any transparency, and without editorial layers between them and the screen.

What also impacts this space is the role and responsibility of corporate advertisers. Several top corporate executives often condemn the lack of substance, racy content and increasing sensationalism of television screens. But do they ever pause to reflect upon their own role in trashing the Pakistani TV screen? Ironically, it is corporate heads in Karachi, who conveniently hand over decision-making to junior administrative executives who find it easier to rely upon the ratings, without setting any standards for content. Ratings come from 700-800 meters across the country; most of these are poor and under-educated homes referred to as categories D to F. Practically this means that TV content has to race to the bottom to meet the lowest common denominator – the tastes and world view of these households. To rely exclusively upon such ratings, without thinking of the consequences for the nation, is a blatant negation of corporate social responsibility – the mantra of many large companies. This must change now. And if they don’t, then concerned citizen lobbyists should chase them up by exposing their criminal irresponsibility towards the ‘public interest.’

But perhaps the most vexing question for a national media commission would be to examine the role of the state broadcaster and determine its future. Should there be a state broadcaster in this day and age? Successive Pakistani governments have been charging every household Rs 35 every month to run, what is essentially a government propaganda portal, which few watch. And then on top of it, PTV dabbles in the advertisement market as well. The BBC has no advertisements and Doordharshan in India has stopped charging a licensing fee. While the policy in Pakistan is certainly unethical, the question is whether it is even constitutional. The commission’s challenge would be to determine how PTV can be converted into an autonomous corporation, de-linked from the Ministry of Information. Without converting PTV into a public broadcaster, with a governing board of eminent citizens, like the BBC, we cannot set a benchmark for a responsible media, which the broadcast market can follow and refer to for best practices.

The same is true for PEMRA. Javed Jabbar’s concept is brilliant and an independent regulator is needed for the market to grow. But in the 10 years of its existence, PEMRA has proved to be totally ineffective. Again and again, it has tried to offer and enforce a code of conduct for the media – the latest, a few months ago. But the media has rebuffed its attempts and views it as nothing but an appendage of the government’s policy to benefit partisan politics. Unless PEMRA is turned into an autonomous constitutional body, without direct control from the government, it will never be possible to create any trust between the regulator the regulated.

A Supreme Court-appointed media commission should invite and listen to all stakeholders, including the channel owners, advertisers, cable broadcasters, media executives, anchors, federal and provincial governments and political parties. The challenge we face is not related to any particular government, party, media group or a few unethical anchors.

Collectively, we face a grim situation where the Pakistani media lacks the ability to communicate and serve the public interest. It cannot bring a diverse nation together to face the challenges of the 21st century. The intellectual efforts of the media commission could provide us with a framework to emerge from this chaos. Without a framework, our chaotic discussions are little different from the TV talk shows we all love to hate.

The Case Against Drone Strikes

Moeed Pirzada | PIQUE |

Emperor with a grim vacuous expression in his eyes is surrounded with courtiers, whose faces are beaming with the intensity and excitement reminiscent of the cheering crowds of Ancient Rome’s gladiator Arena. With gestures of his thumb pointing up or down — perhaps mostly down — Emperor indicates who ought to live and who dies.

No, this is not a scene from Professor’s Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings with dark Lord Sauron in chair trying to control the Middle Earth with his ultimate weapon: One Ring.

Thanks to Jo Becker and Scott Shane of New York Times we now know this is more or less how a former liberal law professor who once took positions against Guantanamo Bay Prison, military commissions and extra-ordinary renditions now decides the fate of insurgents in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. And his weapon of choice is Drone.

Evolution of Barack Obama into a national security president while cleverly hanging on to an old — and perhaps fake — liberal resume has baffled many; one of them must be Cameron Munter, the outgoing U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan.

New York Times has now confirmed what many knew in the diplomatic circle of Islamabad that Ambassador Munter had been at odds with Washington complaining that “he did not realize his main job was to kill people”.

It is common belief shared between many in Islamabad and Washington that differences with CIA station chiefs and poker-faced John Brennan, the Chief of Counter-terrorism, had cost Ambassador Munter his job and the number and nature of drone strikes was one of the main sore points.

Apparently, on the face of it, no government has kept a proper record of the drone strikes and who and how many have died is at best a matter of conjecture and dot connecting.

In Pakistan, few months ago, Barrister Mustafa Nawaz, the-then adviser to the-then Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani attempted to get details from both the military and FATA secretariat and was told they only had on their records the total number of drone strikes and no other information.

The dossier

So whatever exists in public discourse on the subject is a compilation by think tanks or NGOs on the basis of claims made in news reports. The London-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism, which runs one such drone monitoring project, estimates that the U.S. has used drone strikes inside Pakistan up to 332 times in the past eight years and at least 800 innocent civilians have died in such attacks.

Other sources maintain that in Pakistan alone, more than 3,000 people have died in such attacks including militants; this perhaps, include around 175-200 children and many women. Though Pakistani governments and military often remain mum, Pakistani politicians and media believe real figures may be much higher.

What is however, clear is that drone strikes before the last U.S. election of 2008 were far and few and have dramatically, escalated under President Obama. New American Foundation has developed a table on the basis of newspaper reports that gives that data year-wise.

Given that organization’s centre right positioning inside U.S. politics the possibility that figures will be on much lower side should be kept in mind. However, the numbers speak for an unmistakable pattern. Between 2004 and 2007 only nine drone strikes happened, four of them in 2007 alone and then suddenly 33 strikes took place in year 2008 which was an election year.

It is difficult to ignore that domestic U.S. politics and its posturing needs have a definite link with the decision-making to make drone attacks inside Pakistan.

Year

Drone Attacks

Number Killed

2004

1

5

2005

2

7

2006

2

23

2007

4

77

2008

33

314

2009

53

725

2010

118

993

2011

70

536

2012

22

163

Total

302

2843

Source: New America Foundation

The dramatic escalation of drone attacks under Obama — around 280 as compared to just 30-35 under Bush — also correspond well to the same domestic political needs.

From Jo Becker and Scott Shane’s brilliant insightful report, Secret Kill List Proves a Test of Obama’s Principles and Will we get a clear glimpse of how and why President Obama had to walk a tight rope between his liberal credentials and realistic judgments to take middle America, Pentagon and CIA along.

While making decisions to end the Iraq conflict and also withdraw from Afghanistan, he simultaneously needed something to burnish his national security credentials.

Weapon of choice

Drones have become a weapon of choice for him for they can be sold as precise, cost-effective and less politically damaging as compared to all other conventional military tools; for instance, troops on ground in Pakistani border areas or bombing militant hide outs on the pattern of Vietnam and Cambodia.

This tight rope walking and playing clever with the slogans of ‘national security’ has ensured that Obama retains the support of large sections of the democratic vote bank without incurring the unnecessary wrath of those on the right of political divide. It is thus no wonder that today, his counter-terrorism policies are under attack not from Mitt Romney and GOP alliance but American Civil Liberties Union.

Dennis Blair, former director of national intelligence (DNI) had succinctly summed up Obama’s strategy when he said: “It is the politically advantageous thing to do — low cost, no U.S. casualties, gives the appearance of toughness…it plays well domestically, and it is unpopular only in other countries. Any damage to the national interest only shows up over the long term”.

These words, with some  reflection, also help understand the grim nature of international system and the allegations of an imperial order in which people across the world can be subjected to anything as long as it can be justified to the denizens of Washington, London and Brussels.

To reduce allegations of collateral damage and its accompanied political outfall domestically and internationally, Obama has embraced a disputed — and apparently self-serving — method for counting civilian casualties; any male above military age, who dies in a target zone is automatically considered a militant.

The fact that in the cultural context of tribal areas this logic is simply absurd has no material bearing on American calculus. Their argument is that if someone was innocent he won’t be there. The result of this policy is that CIA is killing large number of men in target areas whose names and antecedents it is not even aware of. These “unpersons” of “George Orwell’s 1984” simply get “vapourized” in thin air without any need of checking who they were. Meanwhile President Obama, the winner of Nobel Peace Prize, keeps on appearing smart, strong and decisive.

The downside is that the Pakistani tribal belt has become a testing lab of guinea pigs for a policy that is essentially, political in nature with wider dividends inside the vast system of power linkages and balances that is Washington.

Unfortunately, for Pakistanis, drones are fast emerging as a centrepiece of U.S. power projection; a new cost-effective style of control and management of insurgencies and all kinds of challenges across many other parts of the world, especially Africa. The question whether drone attacks in themselves serve any real purpose or have achieved something substantial in the context of Pakistan has become meaningless to most decision makers in the U.S.

See no evil

But the question has not lost its importance for a vast majority of Pakistanis. Mohammad Danish Qasim, a student of Media Sciences in Iqra University, Islamabad, is also an ambitious filmmaker. His recent short film of 20 minutes, The Other Side revolved around the social, psychological and economical effects of the drone attacks on the tribal society of Pakistan and was broadly reflective of the national feeling in Pakistan.

This film was selected for the Audience Award for Best International Film at the 2012 National Film Festival for Talented Youth held annually at Seatle, Washington. However, Danish and his team were denied visas.

The U.S. visa officers in Islamabad were alarmed the moment they found out that the film Danish made was on the subject of drones. They advised Danish to change the details in his visa application. He did but was still unable to overcome the paranoia of others in Washington.

U.S. government has an unbelievably bizarre, perhaps schizophrenic, attitude towards its drone policy:Drones exist, but perhaps they don’t. Someone has been making drone attacks, someone was dying, press gleefully reported the deaths and occasionally, when someone considered important as a target was killed then there was chest thumping, celebration and self-congratulations.

Intelligence details were leaked in New York Times and The Washington Post, policy papers were written about the effectiveness of drones and think tanks did seminars and conferences.

Whenever Pakistanis protested, as they did much more in the recent months after the Salala tragedy, then the U.S. told them to shut up since drones attacks will continue.

Last year — after the Osama bin Laden killing and violations of Pakistani territorial sovereignty by American forces — some sections of the Pakistani government debated internally, that may be they should raise the drone issue in the United Nations; the top diplomats told them the U.S. has threatened that if Pakistan dared raise this issue on any international forum then there will be serious repercussions.

Taboo subject

But despite all this raging debate across the world, drone attacks somehow have remained a taboo subject for the U.S. government and mainstream media.

It was thus strange when in January of 2012, President Obama made a brief reference and admission that drone attacks are being used against Al Qaeda and affiliates. John Brennan, his chief of counter terrorism, spoke at Woodrow Wilson Center for giving some ethical underpinning to the use of this “weapon of choice” in Obama’s just war. But all this openness was short lived.

When American Civil Liberties Union and New York Times demanded from Justice Department, CIA and Pentagon under Freedom of Information Act to share information about the Drone Program they were denied.

The matter went to the court where Obama administration has now filed a motion to dismiss these cases on the grounds that even admitting that CIA could have anything to do with it is against national security.

If the U.S. position is riddled with hypocrisy and contradictions then unfortunately the Pakistani record is little better.

It is true that public and media at large take a very severe view of drone strikes and consider them against Pakistan’s sovereignty and a violation of human rights. Politicians like Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaf chairman Imran Khan have consistently embodied this point of view from the beginning.

Moral bankruptcy

But thanks to Julian Assange and Wikileaks we know of the moral bankruptcy of Pakistani elite; we know that the top Pakistani decision-makers have been telling the U.S. interlocutors that they can keep going with drone strikes and we — the Pakistanis — will keep on condemning it in public.

Former military ruler General Pervez Musharraf first allowed the drone strikes and the current military chief was requesting the U.S. in 2008-9 to escalate them. On at least one occasion, the military held a formal briefing, trying to justify the need-based relevance of drone attacks and, on other occasions, pitching the case for sovereign use of drone technology. The latter implies it is solely an issue of sovereignty and once that aspect is taken care of then it is fine.

One can perhaps rationalize the compromises of politicians in power and the military that deals directly with the hyper-power; the U.S. They also suffer from a guilt syndrome since they are unwilling or unable to control the border traffic of militants that goes into and out of Afghanistan and permitting drone strikes then helps them reduce the blame.

But the inability of Pakistan’s liberal classes and its human rights establishment to orchestrate a clear position on that issue is disappointing, to say the least.

Human Rights Commission of Pakistan and various well known and internationally acclaimed civil society and media personalities, who have boldly argued for the rights of Baloch insurgents that are pitched against the military and federal government have mostly remained silent on the issue of U.S. drone strikes and Pakistani military’s excesses in Swat and tribal areas.

Who are liberals?

Many Pakistanis end up questioning: Who are these liberals and what do they stand for?

Are liberals in Pakistan merely those who believe in their right to hold a glass of wine or whiskey? Or do they have any systematic political belief derived from principles of liberalism and humanity? Are they afraid to raise a voice against the drone strikes because of the fear of the consternation they may cause in Washington or London? Could it be that Pakistani liberalism merely represents a policy of being pro-West and anti-religion?

It is possible that Pakistani human right activists and liberal intelligentsia has been paralyzed because of various factors, including their fear of being seen as sympathetic to the Islamists.

But now the matter has been taken up by the United Nations and it is time for them to strike a common bond with American Civil Liberties Union and the international community on this issue.

United Nations, since long, has been murmuring on the extrajudicial nature of killings by the U.S. drones but predictably, the matter has been conveniently ignored by an overbearing Washington.

But now the issue has suddenly moved up in the international agenda after China and Russia, in the third week of June, jointly issued a statement at the U.N. Human Rights Council backed by other countries condemning the U.S. drone attacks.

Speaking at a conference in Geneva organized by the American Civil Liberties Union, Prof. Christof Heyns, U.N. special rapporteur on extrajudicial killings, ridiculed the U.S. suggestion that targeted drone strikes happening in 2012 are still somehow a legitimate response to the 9/11 attacks more than 10 years ago.

A dangerous trail

He shared his concern with the participants that CIA attacks in Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere represent a clear threat to the half-a-century long system of international law and would encourage other states to flout long established human right standards.

Perhaps, the mounting temptation in Beijing and Moscow of using drones against their insurgents will focus minds in Washington and London to the implications of their brazen policy agendas.

QC Ben Emmerson, special rapporteur for counter-terrorism, told the conference the protection of the right to life required countries to establish independent inquiries into each drone killing.

It is possible for a state to establish an independent ombudsman to inquire into every attack and there needs to be a report to explain the killings. If states are unwilling or unable to do so then U.N. needs to consider establishing an investigatory body.

Pakistan, which has never mustered the courage to take this matter up in the U.N. was represented by its ambassador to the U.N. in Geneva, Zamir Akram who took this position that more than a thousand civilians have died in U.S. drone attacks and these attacks have neither been accurate nor politically productive.

But what Ambassador Akram will not talk about is the stinking reality is that Pakistan today stands guilty, along with the U.S., of not maintaining any records of the names and ages of all those who ‘vapourized’ in such Orwellian attacks.

Signature strikes

One aspect that may help the U.N. system, the American civil libertarians, Pakistani military and politicians and parts of the U.S. establishment to come together is the issue of “signature strikes”.

In Pakistan, Obama has not only approved the “personality” strikes aimed at named, high value targets vetted by his gory “Death Club” but also the kind of attacks that can rely upon suspicious patterns of behavior observed through aerial surveillance.

David Ignatius, columnist and celebrated author of spy novels, Body of Lies and Blood Money, recently wrote in The Washington Post that Cameron Munter, the outgoing U.S. Ambassador, could live with the named person specific targeting vetted through collected intelligence or to stop something imminent but “signature attacks”  against bad guys in general were beyond his tolerance level.

Many in Washington may be thinking the same; International Commission of Jurists in Geneva and other U.N. interlocutors share this wavelength and this can represent a beginning of sorts on the road to correction.

Obama’s fascination with drone attacks, political dividends inside Washington in an election year, moral bankruptcy of Pakistan’s ruling elite and civil intelligentsia, West’s fear and contempt for political Islam and the complexity of making progress inside the U.N. system all together still don’t help us to obfuscate the fact that killing people by CIA drone strikes through hazy images on computer screens managed by CIA contractors represent a system of belief that combines the accuser, prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner at one platform.

This is not an issue of Pakistan or Muslim world; this represents an affront to the whole edifice of rule of law for which countless millions have sacrificed their lives over the past millennia.

The domestic needs of a U.S. president who managed to hide his true face under mumbo jumbo of liberalism should not be allowed to undermine the international system as it has evolved since Second World War. Even the Editor of a theatre of gladiators in ancient Rome often ordered the fight to last till the “finger”. Obama should not compete with Caligula.

How to Reform the Reformer…!!

0

Moeed Pirzada | Dawn |

The controversy surrounding an interview of real-estate tycoon Malik Riaz on Dunya News has brought Pakistan’s electronic media under unprecedented pressure.

Criticism has flowed fast and furious as an enraged public vents its anger against the industry and its practitioners.

Rarely have so many lost so much in so few days. The media is bleeding credibility. Can the self-inflicted wound be stitched up?

We believe so. But for this to happen, the media industry will need to take a long, hard and critical look at itself, and the state will have to provide a regulatory framework that inspires greater transparency within the media industry and renewed confidence among the public.

The leaked video of two anchors seemingly colluding with Malik Riaz in what was supposed to have been a combative interview has presented damning evidence of much that is distorted within the media.

Yes, what the anchors did was wrong, and yes, their channel must share the blame, but the scope of the rot must not be confined to individual anchors or a single channel. To do this would be to misdiagnose the ailment, or confuse the flu for cancer.This is why we believe the moment for widespread and comprehensive media reforms is upon us. At the heart of this crisis lies a fundamental question: what is journalism for?

This is what Pope John Paul II said in 2000: “…[J]ournalism cannot be guided by economic forces, profit and special interest. It must instead be felt as a mission in a certain sense sacred, carried out in the knowledge that the powerful means of communication have been entrusted to you for the good of all.”

The operative part is the “good of all”. In essence then, journalists have a wider responsibility to the public which requires them to uphold the sacred public trust by telling the truth. Here the truth can simply mean protecting information from all external agendas.

After buying the Washington Post in 1933, Eugene Meyer laid down a principle which stated: “In pursuit of the truth, the newspaper shall be prepared to make sacrifices of its material fortunes, if such a course be necessary for the public good.”

This notion, however, seems lost on the state and the media industry. By giving licences for TV channels, the Pakistani state has provided owners access to the national airwaves.

These airwaves are a sacred trust. The owners have the right to extract profit from these airwaves, but the fundamental underlying concept is the “public good”.

This concept is now under serious threat from personal, political and corporate agendas driving the Pakistani media industry.

Recognising this grim situation, we propose the following recommendations for reforming the media in Pakistan:

National commission on media: Such a commission should have a sweeping mandate to compile a comprehensive report detailing the industry’s problems. A commission has already been constituted by the Supreme Court, but its mandate is too narrow. What is needed is a commission which talks to all stakeholders on all issues.

Bodies like the All Pakistan Newspaper Society, Council of Pakistan Newspaper Editors, Pakistan Broadcasters Association and the Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists can provide valuable inputs, as can individual journalists, advertisers, rating agency personnel etc.

The aim is to delve deep into the affairs of the industry, identify vested interests and conflicts of interests, financial improprieties, dubious sources of financing, deep political linkages etc. The commission’s report can be based on open and confidential information. This report can become the basis for wide-ranging reform.Code of conduct: The industry and the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Pemra) have been unable to come up with a code of conduct. The most practical way is for all TV channels to compile their own codes which should be published on their websites.

Editorial board: One major problem is the owners’ dominance over editorial policy. This allows the owners to peddle their agendas in the guise of journalism, thereby undermining the judgment of professionals.

The solution is the formation of mandatory editorial boards for all media organisations.

These boards will act gatekeepers to keep out vested interests disguised as news and views. The composition, qualifications etc of these boards need to be spelt out and their formation should be a pre-requisite for granting a media licence.

Ombudsman: Every channel should create an office of the ombudsman to oversee and implement its own code of conduct. The ombudsman has to be a person of eminence and repute, with his independent team. His office will receive complaints from all sections of viewers including government and political parties and it will be his job to resolve them. In other words, the ombudsman will provide a self-correcting influence inside every channel.

Credible regulatory authority: Every mature media market has a strong, effective and above all, credible regulatory authority. In the UK, the Office of Communication and in the US the Federal Communications Commission play a vital role in regulating the media industry.

In Pakistan, Pemra has failed to act as a credible and effective regulator. It needs to be thoroughly reformed. Its chairman should be a constitutional post, like the chief election commissioner, so he can carry out his duties without undue pressure.

Professionals should be hired at top positions to construct a framework for the media industry based on international best practices. Parliament should work closely with the Pakistani media industry to bring about such reforms within Pemra and provide necessary safeguards for the organisation to act as a watchdog on the media industry keeping in view the larger concept of the “public good”.

The current crises engulfing the media in Pakistan give us a golden opportunity to undertake such reforms. Failure to do so would consolidate the already deeply entrenched vested interests and throttle the tremendous potential of Pakistan’s vibrant, but often errant, media.

Media and the Issues of Professional Ethics, Sustainable Development Policy Institute (SDPI), Islamabad, 12 June, 2012

0

Dr. Pirzada participated in a seminar, “Media and the Issues of Professional Ethics” organized by Sustainable Development Policy Institute (SDPI) at Islamabad on 12th June, 2012. The Chief Guest of the event was Raja Shafqat Abbasi, Former Judge. Other Participants Included: M. Ziauddin, Editor, Express Tribune, Mohammad Malik, Resident Editor, The News, Hamid Mir, Geo Tv and Fahad Hussain, ARY News.

Will Pakistan attend the NATO Summit in Chicago?

0

Moeed Pirzada  | Daily Times |

To most Pakistanis, Salala was a deliberate act of ‘punishment’ meted out by the Pentagon for failing to cooperate or playing ‘double games’ as it is repeatedly alleged by US officials and media

Will Pakistan be able to attend the NATO summit in Chicago? And if yes, then on what terms and conditions? Monday morning in Islamabad will begin with considerable feverish anxiety around these two questions.

A tripartite commission consisting of NATO’s commander in Afghanistan, General Allen, and the military chiefs of Pakistan and Afghanistan kept on meeting in Rawalpindi on Saturday and Sunday to brainstorm the border control measures and how untoward incidents like the Salala tragedy of November 26 can be avoided. It is expected that the Defence Cabinet Committee (DCC) will meet, with PM Gilani in the chair on May15 and 16 and some analysts predict that Pakistan will be announcing opening the NATO supply route on May 17.

The public argument shaped by the US interlocutors, diplomats and media, and something that has been wholeheartedly bought by many in the Pakistani government and the opinion making circles is that Pakistan overplayed its hand, ended up using its trump card, i.e. ‘NATO supplies’, and has not gained anything in return and is now forced to resume what is described as GLOC’s under NATO’s ultimatum because missing the Chicago summit means being kicked out of the important decision making in the endgame of Afghanistan. NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen’s press briefing of last Friday has added to this gloomy interpretation. Many are also worried for the imminent shortfalls in the forthcoming budget and point out that the ministry of finance has already added CSF reimbursements into its calculations. The much calculated posturing by the US House of Representatives that recommends various kinds of sanctions against Pakistan, including those involving preferential imports, certainly focuses minds on the forthcoming challenges if the impasse is not resolved before Chicago.

Since the approval of the parliamentary committee’s recommendations, the whole media discourse is built around two main points only: the US apology for Salala and end of drone strikes. Going by this, it appears that these are the only two sticking points. However, sometimes it is important to revisit the fundamentals of a problem before you could be sure of the solutions.

So let’s take a step back. Why is the Salala tragedy that led to the closure of the NATO supply routes so nerve wracking for Pakistanis? No doubt, the chilling details of the incident that appeared like an orgy of blood played with the lives of Pakistani soldiers jolted an already traumatised nation. But coming in the climate shaped by the US attack of May 2 to kill Osama bin Laden, it convinced many that the US or perhaps more specifically, the Pentagon in its desperation in Afghanistan, and the way it builds its public narrative, has reached a stage where it sees a certain kind of solution in punishing Pakistan. Arguments like the one advanced by Professor Stephen Krasner of Stanford only confirm this mood.

It’s true that the US side explains Salala as a horrible outcome of mistakes in procedures and communication, but to most Pakistanis, Salala was a deliberate act of ‘punishment’ meted out by the Pentagon for failing to cooperate or playing ‘double games’ as it is repeatedly alleged by US officials and media. Pakistan’s robust decision to close NATO supplies was to jolt the US and its allies into a rethink. The US may or may not realise that its actions are adding to societal meltdown and collapse in Pakistan. This resultant chaos may or may not hurt the US and its regional allies like India, but will definitely destroy the equilibrium of a political and social order where the majority sees the ruling elite kowtowing to US dictation and where the military establishment has lost much of its moral authority since the events of 9/11 when it unwillingly became a partner in the US-led war against terrorism. From the US narrative, it is obvious that, in their singular obsession with the endgame in Afghanistan, they have either no realisation of how their actions are adding to a societal meltdown in Pakistan or they don’t care. But for Pakistanis it matters.

It is in this scenario that the discussions of this tripartite commission on Saturday and Sunday and the understandings reached and conveyed between General Allen, General Kayani and General Karimi become supremely important.

‘Apology’ started to loom large after the parliamentary committee’s recommendations. But before that Pakistan’s foreign minister and foreign secretary were on record insisting, in the most unambiguous terms, that we were not seeking an apology; what we want is the US to understand Pakistan’s red lines and to respect them. By now, we also know for sure that by the beginning of February, some sort of apology was being offered and the Pakistani foreign ministry wanted this to be postponed until the end of the parliamentary review.

The test for the DCC to which General Kayani will report his findings after his meetings will be to assess if Pakistan and the US agree to the wording of a joint statement where the latter affirms that it understands Pakistani concerns arising from the tragedy of Salala; that it respects Pakistani sovereignty and that both sides are determined to work with procedures and communication protocols that will ensure that incidents like Salala do not recur. Pakistan, in the same statement, will need to ensure that it understands the US concerns in FATA and will do everything possible to reduce the misuse of its territory against US troops.

But this assurance is impossible without coming to some sort of understanding on the issue of drone strikes with the US for its narrative describes Pakistan as either unwilling or unable to control the action against its troops from FATA. The US military and administration, now victims of their narratives, will not be able to sell at home a total cessation of drone strikes, especially in an election year.

In the last few weeks, the US has tried, for the first time, accepting responsibility for the drone strikes. First, President Obama made an admission and then his national security adviser, John Brennan, attempted adding moral justifications to the policy in his presentation at the Woodrow Wilson Centre. The sheer ugliness and perhaps immorality of the drone policy requires several doctoral theses from different perspectives, but in a real politic framework, it compels Pakistan to come forward and accept responsibility for permitting limited drone strikes.

Without such an admission, it cannot ask for a framework of mutual intelligence sharing and a modicum of control on this policy. A jointly agreed framework may ensure fewer strikes, a more defined focus on al Qaeda, and can work towards a cessation timetable since Obama has defined his goal as the end of al Qaeda, which he again repeated at his speech from Bagram Airbase on May 2, 2012. After all, in the ever raging debate on drone strikes, no one has raised this question so far that irrespective of all sorts of arguments for and against, could this continue till eternity? However, this vexing question and what kind of language is needed on this issue, will confront the DCC with its biggest nightmare, especially given parliament’s reaffirmed position.

But any understanding to make any sense on this tricky and emotive issue will be incomplete without tying it with the Afghanistan endgame. How do we interpret what President Obama described for the first time as “negotiated peace” and how will this be supported by neighbours, including Pakistan? After all, isn’t the summit in Chicago about Afghanistan and its endgame?

Without any clarity on these issues, the optics of Chicago may become meaningless for Pakistan. Though in a mood of desperation no one dares to ask the common sense question: will in our absence the Chicago summit not have a hole as large as the size of Pakistan in terms of the final solutions related to the withdrawal from Afghanistan?

But while the DCC grapples with these difficult questions, intractable solutions and their inevitable political fallout, it may benefit tremendously from keeping this common sense question in mind. Options never end; you have to keep finding them.

Pakistani Media: Achievements, Failures & Way Forward?

Moeed Pirzada  | PAKISTAN KA KHUDA HAFIZ |

Pakistan’s electronic media has made huge strides in the last one decade. Today this industry has a massive structure and thousands of journalists, executives and technical professionals are directly or indirectly part of it. Whereas Pakistani media may appear less sexy, less liberal or colourful as compared to its Indian counterpart, it is certainly more developed, deeper and robust than the media in most other countries of the region. Contrary to popular discourse on global media, Pakistani media revolution was not an inevitable outcome of the forces of globalization. Musharraf regime’s (1999-2008) goal to break state’s monopoly on information and to open up political space to end the status quo was principally responsible for liberalizing Pakistani discourse. The fact that no parallel development took place in countries like Malaysia, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, or Singapore which are more developed in many other indices, including the use of technology, is an ample proof of this clear policy shift and its dividends in Pakistan.

So what changed? Apart from ending state’s monopoly on information and images, Pakistani media liberalization has created three major impacts: First, by imparting credibility to their news bulletins, Pakistani privately owned satellite channels kicked out international and regional news portals like BBC, Voice of Germany, VOA, Radio Moscow and Akashwani (that had significant penetration into Pakistani domestic information flows) from Pakistani sphere of domestic narrative; Second, in a country where readership of the written word, in any language, has always been limited despite a near 100% comprehension of the spoken word in Urdu, expansion of the 24/7 news media, with its more trustworthy bulletins and racy current affairs programs created ‘national audio-visual platforms’ that started to provide a political and emotional connect across large parts of the country, especially those urban and sub-urban towns that were close to major road arteries and thus amenable to penetration by cable networks.

Third, this political and emotional connect of audio-visual images across large but diverse centres of population that also involved Pakistani diasporas across Europe, North America and Middle East created an altogether new sense of being “one nation” connected together by a shared sense of success and tragedy. This phenomenon hugely empowered, especially in its nascent phase, Pakistani civil society that emerged as a new watch dog on Pakistani politics. The images of 7th March 2007, when Chief Justice was being dragged by a policeman; of 12th May 2007 when MQM muscle men tried to block Chief Justice’s rally in Karachi; of 3rd November 2007 when Gen. Musharraf pronounced his emergency and tried displacing the supreme court and of March 2009 when PMLN initiated a march onto Islamabad leading to the restoration of judiciary all became epic moments of the success of Pakistani media and civil society emerging as a powerful watch dogs of politics and national conscience.

However three years down the line in year 2012, there is a palpable feeling across the country, its key institutions, academia, civil society organisations and even parts of journalistic community that despite a massive expansion of the industry media have lost their way and instead of contributing to ‘public interest’ they are leading towards political and social chaos; becoming prophets of anarchy rather than harbingers of a mature political discourse. This picture of “barbarians at the gate” may be somewhat exaggerated, but something definitely went wrong; and the nature and direction of Pakistani media is today a matter of concern for policy makers, academia, and civil society.

So what went wrong? The honest answer is, there is a huge list: inability of editorial institution to develop in electronic media; failure of Musharraf’s bureaucracy to define clear rules and framework for cross-media ownership; near strangulating control on new tv channels by powerful private investors euphemistically referred to as ‘Seths’ who own and use these public platforms in pursuance of their personal, economic and political interests; inability of the governments and media to develop any consensus on a code of conduct for journalists or for limiting the power of “neo-capitalists” on editorial decision making; mushroom growth of small cable operators who generate revenues in excess of Rs. 40 billion without sharing a dime with the content producers ie tv channels thus forcing tv channels to rely exclusively on commercial advertisements. This importance of absolute reliance on commercialisation and how this is effecting the nature and direction of media content can only be appreciated when we come to understand that over the last few years marketing departments and media buying houses have started to decide their budgets on the basis of reports from western style rating meters that are mostly in poor and uneducated households and have produced a ‘race towards the bottom’ in terms of the quality and taste of the content that is being encouraged and thus produced.

Though Pakistan, inspired by the vision of Gen. Musharraf’s media adviser Javaid Jabbar, took the lead in the region by establishing an Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) in 2002, unlike India where the issue is still in limbo and regulation of media is still being dealt by Ministry of Information and courts. However Pakistani problems got compounded by the fact that governments, working journalists, Media Mughals and the courts have all conspired to undermine the legitimacy of the media regulator rendering it toothless and often a subject of ridicule and contempt from all sides. Regulator abysmally failed to conceive, prescribe and enforce any entry barriers for all those who wanted to own “public platforms” like tv and radio channels. As a result, in Pakistan today owning a “public platform” like a tv channel which influences the collective mind of the society and its nature of political, economic and sociological discourse is considered little different from owing a sewerage pipe factory. This original sin in failing to understand the nature of media that led to the betrayal of “public interest” by the state of Pakistan today lies at the heart of the problem being confronted by the state and society.

Most problems either originate or are multiplied by the absence of a basic conceptual framework and the lack of institutional writ; for instance: there are no professional standards, pre-qualifications or entry barriers; neither the state nor the industry has grappled with the need of proper media schools or training institutions; tv channels don’t offer any on-job trainings or refresher courses for skill developments of editors, techies, producers, reporters or presenters; reporters and anchors both confuse “original information” and “opinions”; vacuum is being compounded by hurriedly established NGO’s that are draining the donor’s money and interest, under the broad poster of media training, without any clearly defined objectives or sense of direction.

Since the Pakistani bureaucracies failed to lay down a properly conceived legal framework for “cross-media ownership”, country has quickly become world’s worst example in terms of media concentration. The powerful newspaper groups, now owning equally powerful public platforms like tv channels, have developed an unprecedented ability to frighten the governments –through their handpicked columnists, anchors and selective news bulletins- thus making it virtually impossible for politicians or civil society to push any legislation or “Code of Conduct” that militates against the interests of these media Mughals.

The irony is that while private media were allowed to expand, multiply and define the norm, the state broadcasting media were not empowered with an autonomous structure, free from the Ministry of Information, that could have enabled them to keep pace with the demands and challenges of a new age. Consequently Pakistan Television (Ptv), especially it’s news and current affairs, has not only lost its viewership but is today without any capacity to define norms and conventions unlike BBC in the United Kingdom that may not have the ratings of the private media but still defines what it means to be “British”. So the awkward reality in Pakistan is that whereas governments, civil society and parts of journalistic community keep on trashing what they see on Pakistani screens as “sub-standard” but they can’t compare it with a “standard” for none exists. No wonder it is now difficult to envision and define an alternative; for instance if what is available through the idiot’s box is not acceptable then what should it look like? In today’s Pakistan, despite lots of biliary reactions and semantics, this question has no easy answer. And this should help understand the nature of the challenge that now confronts the Pakistani state and the society.

But all that discussion, though not exhaustive, still relates only to the issues of content. On technical front too, Pakistani television medium has failed to make the kind of progress it deserves. In terms of satellite penetration, use and conventions it is pretty advanced for instance almost all major tv channels, in contrast with the once powerful state broadcaster, are connected with their bureaus through multiple links and operate dozens of DSNG Vans (Digital Satellite News Gathering); uses of graphic design and animation have made significant progress; satellite up linking for both Pakistani and foreign channels is without government hassles unlike India where case to case permissions are often needed from the Ministry of Information. Despite this progress the Pakistani screen is not yet fully digital; industry has not been able to move to Direct to Home (DTH) broadcasts and Set Top Boxes (STB) principally for the reason that governments wanted to maintain a control through the physical infrastructure of cable networks that are more amenable to the old fashioned policing and pressure tactics bureaucracies excel in. This may however be changing soon. Indian DTH broadcasts are fast penetrating Pakistani homes at low costs and the whole regime of “potential control” through cable networks will soon become meaningless. Ironically this new “strategic need” to open up may further weaken the Pakistani state and society’s hold on the flow of sounds and images and may compel it to reconsider the whole concept of regulation through sophisticated legal instruments instead of physical tactics adopted by bureaucracies.

What should be done? What is the way forward? Unfortunately the extensive media discourse available across Europe and the United States helps understand that struggle of Pakistani state and civil society against media monopolies and crass commercialisation of content is not going to be an easy battle. But despite the gigantic hurdles on the way, for all those who want to fight the “barbarians at the gate” it’s time to start a well-conceived national debate on the subject.

This national debate needs to focus on number of issues, they include: the policy aspects of regulation through a genuinely autonomous regulator; a broadly accepted Code of Conduct for electronic media; challenge of media monopolies especially in view of unlimited and unregulated cross-media ownerships; need for alternate rating mechanisms to protect high quality content and to prevent this continuous race to the bottom in terms of quality and taste; the issues of entry qualifications for media, of training and capacity building for all those who are in the business of generating content; and finally the challenge of digitalization like DTH and this one way traffic of images and sounds into Pakistan without any parallel ability of Pakistani media to reach out and have its impact in the surrounding region.[1]

One of the biggest stumbling blocks on this way forward has been an almost ideological resistance in the Pakistani journalistic community against the very concept of regulation for media. This is mostly a result of confusion which is benefitting capitalists rather than the media. Most journalists have their background in print publications, and Pakistani print media had fought relentlessly against dictatorships, draconian laws and highhandedness of state apparatchiks. They fear giving away their hard won freedoms to the unreliable state authorities on any pretext and emphasize “self-regulation”.

This is however a misunderstanding based upon their inability to distinguish between the nature of print and electronic media. Whereas print is a medium of choice and has many barriers of access for instance money, necessary education and taste tv is a mass medium with limited barriers. In all developed societies print, like Pakistan, is now being self-regulated but powerful regulators exist for electronic media across UK, United States and European Union. Pakistan especially needs to learn from the experiences of Office of Communication (OfCom) in UK and Television without frontiers (TWF) in European Union. Additionally Indian experiences with the expansion of electronic media are relevant. Though India has still not developed an electronic media regulator but has given sufficient autonomy to the state broadcasters by assembling a powerful self-regulating corporation under the title of “Prasar Bharti”. Also the role of Indian legislations, Competition Commission and courts in fighting media concentration, abuse of dominant power, and decisions on issues like defamation will be highly relevant to Pakistani students of media sciences. Private entrepreneur’s capital, energy and self-interest will continue to be the defining spirit of Pakistani media but with better understanding the civil society and the state will be able to provide a framework inside which this ‘self-interested spirit’ will learn to operate.

It is not possible for Pakistan to unilaterally pull back when till 1984 they had the defacto suzerainity over the areas as proved by more than 70 international mountaineering expeditions!

0

Moeed Pirzada | FB Blog |

Hi! written word has one great advantage over the spoken word that you can always go back and check…read my last status update again, and don’t make wrong judgements; I am not blaming Pakistan or India…I am blaming both, but I am not naive to suggest that one side can unilaterally pull pack and certainly it is not possible for Pakistan to unilaterally pull back when till 1984 they had the defacto suzerainity over the areas as proved by more than 70 international mountaineering expeditions that went up in that area after seeking permissions from Pakistan and India did’not object thus agreeing to that status maintained since 1947; it appears that somewhere in the late 1970’s Indian military command realized certain strategic advantages in moving into this area (perhaps with the building of KKH through Gilgit towards China, they feared something) …because the justification Indian side is citing for their moving there is not very convincing. Pre-emption itself is not a good excuse, and in this case it is hardly proven.

However the reality is that they have moved there and despite huge costs in men and capital they are not willing to disembark from there without getting something in return. Given investments in road/communication structures and given the growing size of Indian economy they don’t feel the squeeze, becasue they think they can afford it and continue to be there. However it will be equally naive to think that Pakistanis are under any greater pressure to vaccate as some people have suggested. Pakistani costs in men & material are much much less than the Indian costs. The recent tragedy & sudden loss of 138 men has focused minds in Pakistan but otherwise there is no greater imperative for Pakistan to come down and leave those heights. Like Indians they too have learnt to keep a presence.

Now comes the difficult part of it. From pure military mind’s calcuations or ‘real politik’ there is no imperative for both sides to compromise on their positions. Pakistan cannot dislodge India, but India is hardly in a situation to use its position for any military advantage (except in a text book argument) because Pakistanis are sitting below and surprises are not possible. Also given a desire to improve relations, regional and international atmosphere, it is highly unlikely for both sides to use these heights for any real moves. The inability to find a “mutually agreed solution” is meanwhile seriously degrading environment which is a joint asset of both nations and this “pure military thinking” on both sides prevents both of us to develop “trust” which is ultimately needed to move forward on all issues from Mumbai to trade to Kashmir to water and so on…solution can only be found by non-military political visionaries that can think “out of box” like Tanvir Ahmed Khan had briefly suggested in this program…. this Siachen problem tells us the limitations of ‘real politik’…but I am very hopeful that we will be able to find a solution which will be a win win for both sides…

It’s clear that Hindus don’t see any boundaries of their faith and I guess there won’t be a concept of ex-communication…!

Moeed Pirzada |

Hi! thanks to all Hindu members of this Forum who have taken time and effort to write detailed paras to let us understand how they see their faith and its evolution in modern times. I cannot thank everyone separately but let me add that I read comments of Rit Chandra, Santosh Tripathi, Karan Ch, Praveen Kumar, Ashutosh Anand, Sameer Virmani, Vicky Sindhu and Amit Jacques Soofi with interest..I am still reading others! It’s clear that Hindus don’t see any boundaries of their faith and I guess there won’t be a concept of ex-communication which also becomes apparent from the diverse nature of responses, because many responses – though so well written – are so different from each other that in another religious community will lead to a blood bath but apparently there is a quiet acceptability of differences from each other in terms of approaching the ‘dharma’..and that may be the strength that helps in interacting with a fast changing world and fast integrating global village; something which should be very educative for other members of this page.

Read more: Pakistani Muslims attitude towards Ahmediya/Qadyanis is disgusting…!

I have been reading off and on about Hinduism; but we seldom get to interact with Hindus on an extended period and like languages – I tried learning French in Lahore, New York and London and Spanish in New York but forgot soon without practice- you lose sense of things without repeat inter-action; my maximum exposure was during my stay in the beautiful town of Austin, in Texas which was perhaps one of the biggest campus of Indo-Pakistani communities and I guess still is; and I happened to attend colorful festivals like “Ras & Gharba” which were amazing… during that time period I got to read one book, that was neither academic nor historical but instead a travelogue by as of then an unknown American graduate of Yale University – Jonah Blank- who had traveled from one end of India to the other, tracing the mythical journey of Rama when he chased Rawan to rescue Sita…that book, a travelogue was “Arrow of the Blue Skinned God” …Jonah Blank keeps on traveling in modern India of 1990’s but with every new destination he takes us back to the ancient world of Rama and his journey….most other books I have forgotten but this one has stuck, and if you get the opportunity then you must read it…

Jonah Blank- who had traveled from one end of India to the other, tracing the mythical journey of Rama when he chased Rawan to rescue Sita…that book, a travelogue was “Arrow of the Blue Skinned God” …Jonah Blank keeps on traveling in modern India of 1990’s but with every new destination he takes us back to the ancient world of Rama and his journey

I must apologize for some of the rude responses from a tiny minority of Pakistani members of this page; fearing this I had requested all that let this post be “Only and Only for Hindus”..and I guess one cannot be more clear than this; but having said this, I am glad that most respondents were not ‘disrespectful’ and many decided to ignore rude comments from each other; so, in the end, there was a kind of interaction and understanding…To all those who wrote “rude comments” I must say that we the Muslims are the most sensitive about “negative comments” about our faith, from anyone but we often forget the sayings of Prophet who admonished abusing other’s faith “for they will then foul mouth your faith”

For a better future in South Asia, and all around us, it’s important for all of us to understand where we are coming from? we need to appreciate each other’s religions, conventions and historical narratives; only then can we understand what are the sensitivities and why? let me conclude by adding that most of the world, across different religions fail to understand the Muslim sensitivities towards Prophet Muhammad because when they reflect inside their range of experiences they don’t find a parallel; this is because the way other great religions – including Christianity evolved – there did not exist a central defining character in the way it was in Islam and still is; some of us will remember that British colonizers had often referred to Indian Muslims as “Muhammadans”…

To all those who wrote “rude comments” I must say that we the Muslims are the most sensitive about “negative comments” about our faith, from anyone but we often forget the sayings of Prophet who admonished abusing other’s faith “for they will then foul mouth your faith”

anyway let me conclude; by now the controversy raging across Middle East has taken a totally different dimension; three days ago on Friday I went to a dinner where I met a select group of executives – most of whom were either educated in the US or had sustained professional exposures inside the US – and some of them were concerned that this Gas station owner in California who has turned into a film maker on Islam, thanks to $5 million of donations, looks like a suspicious buffoon who has been set up by a “master mind” and the objective is to dent Obama at a time when his national security policies are his strong point. I laughed at the speculations as “conspiracy theories”…especially since the insinuation was towards Israelis trying to influence the US Elections…..however I am posting a detailed piece from New York Times (

I laughed at the speculations as “conspiracy theories”…especially since the insinuation was towards Israelis trying to influence the US Elections…..however I am posting a detailed piece from New York Times (US is preparing for a Long Seige of Arab Unrest) that explains that how Obama’s re-election campaign is suddenly in trouble because of the images pouring in from Middle East and from around the world…keep in mind that half the right wing America still suspects that Obama is either a Muslim or Muslim sympathizer… that shouldn’t surprise anyone because at least 33% of the members of this Forum at any time keep on suspecting me to be an American Agent, a Qadyani, an ISI stooge, a Christian sympathizer, a Raw Agent, an Atheist, Zaid Hamid type fundo and I guess now in the last 24 hours a secret Hindu…fortunately that 33% keeps on changing with every post…

 

Moeed Pirzada is prominent TV Anchor & commentator; he studied international relations at Columbia Univ, New York and law at London School of Economics. Twitter: MoeedNj. The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Global Village Space’s editorial policy. This piece was first published in Moeed Pirzada’s official page. It has been reproduced with permission.