Dodging Pakistani Sleuths to Cover a War and a Coup

Farzana is as anti-Indian, pro-islamist and pro-paki as they come...and she has a regular column in some fishwrap somewhere...

The morons who – to this day, defend the asinine folly of their baaps and dadas in spite of the piles of evidence of rotting corpses lying all around and stinking to the whole world – the morons whose whole “country” identity was created on the basis of their religion which ninety-nine percent of them have no ability to understand and perhaps never will – the morons whose whole purpose for existence, drilled repeatedly through controlled educational tools is to fight against a made-up “dushman” – those morons can never be expected to carry out any honest appraisal of ANYTHING – least of all of what constitutes a free press!

In India, the filtering that anil ji speak of is not that perfect. Communists and some other groups occassionally get away with statements and actions that many others would clearly suspect of being anti-India.

I don't know how to explain it but it is true. Indian generally "believe" in the essential goodness of India (and in the need to preserve it) as Pakistanis do in Islam.

#68 Posted by bulleya on August 26, 2007 12:28:34 pm


it is true throughout the islamic world.....one can debate islam, but not, openly, be blasphemous against it


Of course..what capt clueless won't tell you is that throughout the islamic world, all debate about islam is considered blasphemous...the only thing you're allowed to debate is whether mo said it's ok to beat your wife twice a day or three times..

bulleya, IMO, dm and anil were not speaking of being blasphemous against Islam, but of questioning it (Islam itself, not someboy else's interpretation of it, or somebody's particular method of follwoing it). Basically, suggesting that following Islam, as it is, as it was revealed, can lead to all sorts of problems for mankind.

When you say "debate Islam," the debate dm and anil ji have in mind is not debate between different versions and interpretations and understandings of Islam (so the best, truest, could be adopted) but whether Islam is worth following.

Note, nobody is saying that that is what Pakistanis must do. But that no Muslim, and certainly no Pakistani, will publicly make those sorts of statements, or enter into those sorts of "debates."

Again, the reason is not slavery to other Muslims, but the real belief (in that 'true' Islam really has no problems or in that those problems are not big enough for a Pakistani to, all matters considered, publicly air those beliefs).

So everyone, in practice, is pro-Islam. In India, where we have geogrpahical nationhood, the situation is fairly similar. Call that blind belief, if you will.

Indian army is not politicized or communalized to the extend Paksitani army is. Pakistani army has tasted the blood of power to colonize / rule its civilians, and has done things to retain power.

The natural Law of Bell Curve applies in this situation also. Majority of Pakistanis are centerist moderate. Although center of gravity is different from others societies and is very Pakistani. Army can achieve its goal, only thru alliances with the fringes. Huge center in the bell curve knows any other way it, not army or fringes, will get power. Therefore, the center has not been interested in Army's shenenigans to get power. It acts only when it gets fed up or Army foolishly weakens itself, a la Bangladesh.

Only now, Army is exploring an alliance with a centerist majority civilian political party, PPP. This is the first time in modern history. One of the outcomes can be a powerful and stable alliance of moderates, and hence a blueprint for many islamic nations.

It is absurd to even think that English media in India uses movies to propogate its views into broader base. Yes, Pakistan was a villain in India, and hence Bollywood jumped on this wagon to make money. This was nothing different than opportunistic market based action.

One has to watch election campaigns in India to feel and see how broader base it brought inside the tent. All techniques - including booth capturing - are applied.

Self censorship is a misnomer to portray India media. By definition censorship supresses. Just as news / item critical to islamic religion in Pakistan is censored, and censured also, if not punished.

In India, news / item is vigorously fileterd, much like in the U.S. The news / item that gets filtered out, if it is valuable, eventually finds it way, because it is not censored / erased. Otherwise, one will not read news from Bihar of family eating worms to survive.

Media in both countries serve the needs of its readers very competently.

dost_mittar/anil: ......your comments on criticizing islam in pakistan are correct.....it is true throughout the islamic world.....one can debate islam, but not, openly, be blasphemous against it......this is true in pakistan for christianity and judaism also......though, as you mentioned, Allah, is openly criticized in poetry.....

......my comments on media were in context of india/pakistan......india media (and public) is very pro-govt. when it comes to india/pakistan issues.......there is hardly any criticism.......pakistan is full of criticism of govt. policies on these issues; in media and in general public......take a look at the commentary on chowk........pakistanis' views on india/pak are all over the place......while the indian commentators, on such issues, are generally very pro indian govt. line......

i think a major reason is that pakistanis know far more about india, hence it is very difficult for the govt. to influence them.......for example, i know far far far more about india, than any indian, on this site, would know about pakistan.....hence i can easily see through anything the pakistan govt. would say about india.....

#65

“it was not for the army the religious elements in Pakistan would have been out of the picture a long time ago.”

this error, out of many, stands out so here is the fix

If it were not for the army, the religious elements in Pakistan would have been out of the picture a long time ago.

#65
“it was not for the army the religious elements in Pakistan would have been out of the picture a long time ago.”

This error out of many stands out so here is the fix.

If it were not for the Army, religious elements in Pakistan would have been out of the picture a long time ago.”

Part II

Bringing the whole thing back into Indian and Pakistan context (how unfortunate that may be)

Both countries have different priorities and the press responds to those priorities. As I have already said those priorities makes it difficult to compare the press in the two countries.

From Pakistani media’s pov a conflict in Balochistan, no matter how localized, is a national conflict and worthy of national discussion. Conflicts in Assam or even in Kashmir from the Indian pov are still regional conflicts and there is no reason for the Indian media to elevate it to the national level. The level of carnage on a particular day may change that. However, generally regional conflicts may not be worth an exhaustive reporting and lengthy discussions in op-ed space. (if Balochistan was in India, the conflict there would have been regional)

The National conflict in India is defined in entirely different terms. The destruction of Babri Mosque, the massacre of muslims in Gujarat, Mumbai or other places define the national conflict in India. Hence, the Indian media takes up the religious conflict at national level. This religious of Sectarian conflict in India has national repercussions and impacts. Government in the center changes hands because of this issue and the major political parties pay attention to what both communities are thinking at a particular point in time. The Indian media goes in the self censorship mode when the time comes for the culprits to pay for their crimes. However, as the minority community noted in India, the Indian media was more than happy to keep the Mumbai bomb blast cases to the fore relentless.

Since the religious conflicts in India is the core political and national issue most of the Indian on this site and elsewhere look at the politics from the religious pov. For them all politics is religious.

For a regular Indian, religion plays the most important part in any political debate. So, they invariably jump on religion as the first place to attack.

In Pakistan situation is different. In Pakistan the conflict is straight forward between the moderates, liberals, Nationalist and leftist on one side and religious rightwing supported by the army, fanatics, terrorists and jihadis on the other side. Even though it seems that the religion is an issue but the in reality the issue is political desires of the conservatives led by the religious elements in Pakistan. Pakistanis fight for the provincial rights and openly discusses Sindhi, Punjab, Mohajir and Balochi conflict in political and chauvinistic terms.
These issues get prominence in Pakistan news media and a conflict in Balochistan would always remain a National News.

In other term Pakistani politics is non religious and there is no need for the Media to discus this issue at length because the point of dispute is not religion but the political desires of some who use religion for political gains. In Pakistan, moderate have won many victories and it was not for the army the religious elements in Pakistan would have been out of the picture a long time ago.

The post is too long already but a few words about the army. The armies or the defense establishment in every country tends to be conservative. Untrained and uneducated conservatives are more likely to fall under the religious claptrap. The Pak army is no exception. It find religious element who emphasis conservatives value as natural allies.

“But how many mainstream Indian journalists can we quote who have striven to contradict their government’s assertions in the course of a war or even in a verbal duel that India has been involved with practically all its neighbors at one time or another?”

This is the key point raised in the article and so far I don’t see any Indian poster addressing the issue. This issue directly relates to the independence of media. A free media means squat when the media finds it difficult to question the government.

Is the self censor worst than the enforced censor? Censor in any form is bad, horrible and not acceptable. If a media proudly claims its tradition of being “Free” but ends up supporting the government pov in National interest than the press is NOT free anymore. It is merely working with the best interests of the nation and is actually looking after its own interests. Those interests could be the ad income, the access to the power or perhaps just a desire to be acceptable by a majority of the public or it embraces the idea that by encouraging the histrionics, it will stay away from a controversy that could impact its economic survival. In that sense, the seemingly free media is not actually free. It is using a form of censorship which prevents it reporters, columnist, and analyst to write how they actually see things.

Bringing the whole thing back into Indian and Pakistan context (how unfortunate that may be)
part II coming up.

Media in both countries reflect the pulse of the people. Pakistani media grew out of a strong need to watch and criticize the government, and play an adversarial role. Indian media did not have to play such an adversarial role to the government. In addition, Indian government, being the way it is elected, is not regarded as an adversary. The government in India participative, and is regarded as part of the fabric, however corrupt it may be. Also something positive has been happening over a sustained period of over the last 15 years. Therefore, something is there to report. It has its villains, communists for the centrist to right of center media, while BJP is a villain for the left of center newspapers.

This was visible even in my days, when one read the Organizer, and the Blitz. Frankly, right now this nuclear debate is useless, most politicians privately concede that it is needed. The communists on ideological ground do not want to come out supporting this bill. After all these politicians have made their career criticizing the U.S., even when they send their kids for education and they come to the U.S.

BJP is playing politics, in preparation for the election. Hindutva cannot be played second time. The U.P. elections proved it. It is my view that BJP will come out and support it. For now it is busy watching that more wedges are being driven between Congress and Communists. Congress is a history, as a political force, this is the only way they can kill it according to BJP strategists. The game BJP is playing is no different from religious right in the U.S.

Communists in South Asia have a very different evolution. They, unlike Chinese, never had to launch and manage mass struggle to really their power from the barrel of the gun. Therefore, whether it is a leftist from Pakistan - a la HP, or esteemed and respected Somnath Chatterjee (I had the honor of hosting him at my home and meeting him in Calcutta), they all are good for theoretical analysis upon analysis. Last time I had visited Calcutta, that was the onlny city to have traffic cops, not traffic lights creating traffic gridlocks on the busiest intersections. The answer was CPM Zindabad.

Whereas reading the English newspapers of Pakistan and reading comments in Chowk, it is clear that Pakistan is still does not feel its government to be part of its fabric, and there is little positive to report. Even on the government scene, where positive is indeed happening, reports come out with a kind of gun-shy cynics. May be there have been too many slips between cup and a lip there.
Jawed / Barua must be scrapping the barrel to find the worst example of independence of Pakistani press. I can come up with better examples, and I have not been to Islamabad. This example is so naïve, that I would be angry if I were a Pakistani, that such an example is used.

# 61, and like any genuine journalist, he should have, once he realized his mistake. Ahmedis are muslims only among non-Muslims, or when some liberal Muslims are talking to non-Muslims.

To confuse all this for ayaz amir being somehow a "slave" or "agent" or "boot-licker" of "other" Muslims is just silly. He is just a good Muslim and shares key beliefs.

#59 Posted by dost_mittar on August 26, 2007 9:07:13 am


There is however one area where Pakistani media is totally unfree and that is with respect to any criticism of Islam. Some interpretations of Islam may be criticised but not the religion itself.


No kidding...I remember an Ayaz Amir column in which he called an ahmedi place of worship a mosque thus implying ahmadis were somehow muslim...in his next column, he came out and apologized for calling ahmadis muslims..

dm sahib

Again, it is not a matter of 'freedom' or 'independence' or 'objectiveness,' or 'fairness.'

There is simple and full 'consensus.' Nothing is wrong or can ever be wrong with Islam itself.

The Press is part of the society.

bulleya:

You have to distinguish between an "unfree" media and one that is not questioning. Indian media is quite free though it may be less questioning of the official stance in specific cases. On Kashmir, for instance, there was a lot of criticism of the Indian stand on Kashmir. Most of the Indian media thinks that it was a mistake on the part of Nehru to go to the UN and promise a plebiscite; many also are against article 370 of the constitution which gives special rights to Kashmiris and prevents other Indians from buying property or moving to that state. There was, until recently, a Hindu nationalist media which wanted all of Kashmir in India, although lately there seems to be a large consensus in favour of accepting LOC as a border. So, you see there have been differences but, yes, there are not many who have supported the Pakistani POV, although there has been a minority which has spoken up against human rights violations against Kahsmiris.

Similarly, Pakistani media, although very lively and aggressive against the government, can also display consensus. For example, almost the entire Pakistani media is now against American intervention against Iraq and Afghanistan and believe that the US should negotiate with the Taleban to end the insurgency in Afghanistan. As in the case of the Indian media, I do not think that this is because of any policy directive but is simply a case of the media reflecting popular national consensus.

There is however one area where Pakistani media is totally unfree and that is with respect to any criticism of Islam. Some interpretations of Islam may be criticised but not the religion itself.