Hassan Aslam Shad
Renowned anchor person Hamid Mir has been taken off-air. Mir’s employer Geo News admitted that his speech “resulted in backlash from different segments of society” and that its “editorial committee and lawyers will check for violation of law and policy”. The still unresolved attack on Asad Toor and Mir’s sacking or silencing has further has inflamed emotions and deepened divisions not only between media and the establishment but also within media.
One school of thought comprises those who see these developments as part of the state’s campaign to muzzle media. Mainstreaming this initiative are political parties like PML-N and PPP who have jumped the bandwagon for political reasons.
The other camp consists largely of pro government and the armed forces who claim that the attack on Toor was orchestrated by those inimical to Pakistan’s interests or that in the very least it is an attempt to malign Pakistan internationally as part of the “5 th Generation Warfare” against Pakistan. The above positions appear irreconcilable but there a huge ‘gray area’ in-between – one that is full of nuances. Let us look at some ‘facts’ to separate the rational grain from the emotional chaff.
First, Mir and the group he represents allege that journalists are being victimized by the state. Cited in support of this contention are the recent attacks on journalists. What is rather surprising is that whenever any such attack occurs this group apportions it to the establishment. In the absence of any proof, this ends up becoming their word against the state. A more dangerous trend has been that NGOs, global media and even some countries like US have jumped in to exhibit their solidarity with the ‘cause’ of Pakistani journalists. This makes one wonder – what is the ‘cause’
that our journalists are standing up for? Is it the rule of law, democracy or some other ideal that is absent in Pakistan’s political dispensation? More importantly, are journalists supposed to stand up for a ‘cause’ without risking becoming ‘activists’?
The catch phrase of the day is “freedom of speech and expression”. It excites emotions and gives an instant ‘buy-in’ to those looking to anchor in a global support base and gives fodder to international media looking to point their guns at Pakistan. Interestingly, if “freedom of speech and expression” is the yardstick to measure how well Pakistan stacks
up internationally, then Pakistan is indeed one of those very few countries where media and journalists have been given a long leash. The statements (irresponsible, in bad taste, or borderline treacherous) that our media continues to get away with have landed journalists in other countries in legal crosshairs.
As far Toor’s claims, it is absurd to imagine that ISI – the country’s intelligence agency – would depute a “major” level officer as a foot soldiers for the purported victim. The only thing missed out by the attackers was to leave their official business card with Toor, it seems.
Sadly, the twitter-trolling of Toor – questioning the nature of his injuries and their quick healing – lent unnecessary credence to Toor’s otherwise outrageous story that has no legs of its own to stand on.
The second event is Hamid Mir’s emotional diatribe against the country’s armed forces. T It isn’t the first time that a renowned Pakistani anchor has let loose a blistering polemic against the state.
What needs to be done ? The state needs to come ‘clean’ and confront this narrative in a more professional manner. Why is it important? Here’s why.
International media has pounced on the opportunity to showcase Pakistan as a dystopian state hellbent on muzzling media – a notion that sells globally and has been conveniently used to scapegoat Pakistan in the past – should come as no surprise.
This is where the state needs to go a step further than merely investigating the allegations as has been promised. A commission of inquiry needs to be set up to investigate allegations made by journalists. This commission should include respected mainstream media representatives; it should be empowered to investigate recent attacks, collect evidence, call witnesses; and present its findings to the government for further action.
Where it can get interesting is if there are two outcomes. First, any journalist is found lying or conjuring stories for popularity or for other objectives. Second, if the attacks are found to have been sponsored by
outside agencies / groups working against Pakistan. The latter cannot be ruled out in light of Pakistan’s upcoming FATF review and the fast unravelling scenario in Afghanistan post US exit.
In case a journalist is found lying, it would be the responsibility of the state to launch a prosecution against him/her so that a message is sent to all concerned that the state will not remain a sitting duck waiting for its
reputation to be tainted by one of its own. More importantly, impartial proceedings will end up picking holes in the narrative of the journalist concerned. Discrediting these allegations is more important at this
stage. All else can wait.
As for Hamid Mir, the state will carefully need to think through what needs to be done as well as dispassionately ask why this is happening in the first place. Prosecuting Mir (as has been the demand by some circles in Pakistan) is bad strategy – for now. He is already basking in the glory of the limelight
generously bestowed on him by the government supporters who have been baying for his blood. This isn’t how to win a lawfare – specially one against ones own who has been tolerated for way too long. What is important is to drain the swamp. This draining will take some tack and patience.
Hamid Mir and his likes thrive on gaslighting alleged ‘grievances’ of others for political gain. If a commission of inquiry determines that any journalist’s allegations are unfounded, it would lend credence to the state’s narrative and it can later consider legal options in the wake of such findings.
Equally, the state needs to pause and reconsider its media policy. Any good policy is a mix of clear objectives, sound process and consistent communication. In the past media houses and journalists have been demonized as either being complicit in anti-state activities or for not being aligned with the ideology of Pakistan. Without a doubt, Pakistan has had its fair share of journalists / media houses who may have acted against the country’s vital interests. But painting all media with one brush is morally untenable and a poor strategy. The government must avoid ‘lumping’ all media houses / journalists in one scandalous category. As much as I (or anyone else for that matter) may loathe Pakistani journalists as being uncouth, ill-informed and peddlers of fake news (they are, no doubt!), no one has – or should have – the licence to affix any labels.
The dirty slug fest we see happening between government ministers and journalists on social media does not help the government’s narrative either. If at all, it shows weakness when a government minister or
official engages in heated discussions with journalists to rebut a story wholly undeserving of his/her time and attention.
The state also needs to understand the dangers of creating, tolerating or dealing with ‘Frankenstein’s it may have relied in the past. This is but a blemish on the state’s own track record.
Lesson: giving undue importance to individuals, especially those who may either be aligned with political groups or doing so for money gives rise to
malevolent tendencies in them. Space for critical discourse is healthy. Similarly, action against slander, defamation legally and professionally is a necessity to prevent confusion and social unrest.
Lastly, if it is not too much to ask, our media needs to draw a line between journalism and activism – something that has all but disappeared from the current dispensation. Journalists are supposed to separate fact from fiction and expected not to present their own views as facts. Sadly, Pakistani journalists over the years have become a mouthpiece for political activism and in the process any semblance of impartiality and greater national purpose has eviscerated from the horizon.
If media houses do not reign in their journalists, the state would be left with no choice but to prescribe the rules of the game. Since it is important that segments of society effected by a legal rule have a say in its creation, Pakistani media’s best bet is to act fast to arrest the decline of journalistic standards. Pakistani media must limit itself to educating the public about the truth instead of trying to paint Pakistan as a dystopian state – something that is bound to fail and will inevitably invoke the wrath of the state.
The author is an international lawyer based in the Middle East and a graduate of Harvard Law School, U.S.A. Email: veritas@post.harvard.edu
