| August 17, 2003 | Sunday | Jumadi-us-Sani 18, 1424 |
Usurping the right to watch TV channels
We could a lot better in the US
WROTE Karl Von Clausewitz (1780-1931), Prussian soldier and scholar of military science and history: “I’d disclaim any intent of telling generals how to conduct campaigns. It was the business of the theorist to educate the mind of the commander, not to accompany him into battle.
“It was not even to provide him with ready-made principles of war. It was to teach him how to think, not to do his thinking for him...”
Seen in the current national perspective, the ‘conduct of campaigns’ would mean coping with the on-going stand-off between General Pervez Musharraf’s government and the political opposition. Since the Bangladesh war of 1971, the military has been overtly or coverly, directly or indirectly, engaged mainly in national (civil) affairs. Campaign in the present context thus has a civil connotation.
The only exception has been the Kargil episode which the army (military) commander launched in formal consultation with the civil authority of the day, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, but largely at his own initiative. While the army chief has claimed that “everyone was on board”, the strategy behind Kargil and its actual execution was generally accepted to be his brainchild. The civilian authority was brought into play only when the campaign would not go according to plan to force a pull-out from areas across the LoC earlier overrun by our forces.
It is to be noted that the military mind is generally sensitive, even inimical, to any advice or opinion gratuitously offered. This would be particularly so in the case of a retired individual like this writer who is least expected by the those in service to say or suggest anything contrary to the military high command’s own perception of high policy matters, civil or military. Such behaviour, even if called for and timely, is not expected from one of the ‘same feather’.
But the coverage of a recent meeting of the corps commanders (Dawn, August9) presided over by General Musharraf needs critical examination. It is an event with wide-ranging implications of a fundamental nature likely to have an impact on the conduct of national affairs if carried to the logical conclusion.
The two major issues reported to have come up for debate (and ultimate consensus) at the meeting pertained to the role and status of the army chief as head of state (and, in effect, of government) in a dual capacity, with his general’s uniform as an essential component. The unanimous opinion emerging from the meeting was that “no dictation should be accepted to shed the military uniform”.
The military commanders “expressed their confidence in the leadership” of the president and opined that no timeframe could be given for the removal of his military uniform.
The issue of the uniform, it was urged, should be left for Gen Musharraf to decide in accordance with the geo-strategic challenges and imperatives the country is so up against. There was “no question” about “compromising over the holding of dual offices by Gen. Musharraf...”
The federal cabinet was informed of ‘some’ of the decisions of the crucial commanders’ meeting. In the routine language of official files, whatever was conveyed to the cabinet meeting presided over by Prime Minister Jamali would have been ‘For Info (information) Only’. That would, in practical terms, preclude any further action at the cabinet level contrary to the military commanders’ decision.
Should that really be the case, all the talk about return to a parliamentary, democratic order under a civil government (cabinet) would be little more than an essentially PR exercise. It would, in effect, denote the emergence of a supra- constitutional, supra-parliamentary, all-powerful body (or institution?) in the shape of what may well be called the college of corps commanders (COCC). Regardless of the wishes, policies and perceptions of the elected government, the COCC, at a stroke, could nullify all that the supreme civilian authority might stand for at a given point in time.
Yet another major and potentially tricky implication of the COCC discussing and deciding through a consensual procedure matters concerning the army chief’s service is that it exposes it to the vagaries of what may, eventually, amount to an electoral process. This would be a major paradigm shift in the nature of civil- military relations, tilting it inevitably and heavily in favour of the military high command. One hopes matters will not come to such a pass.
As for the demands of the “prevailing international environment” to justify the continuation of the president in his dual capacity, it is hardly anything out of the ordinary. From day one of its emergence, Pakistan had been up against no end of national and international threats and challenges. The question for us to decide now is whether a duly elected democratic and stable government or an army chief, approved by his corps commanders to stay on, would be better suited to face up to a given contingency.
— The writer is a retired brigadier of the Pakistan Army.
KARACHI: One Karachiite, commenting on the huge crowds that there were on the streets of Karachi with reference to Pakistan’s Independence Day, argued that if the Indian channels had been operational on cable TV, the crowds would have been much smaller. People would have stayed at home to watch TV, which is both a better, cheaper and more entertaining option. Now this may or may not be true. In focusing on this Indian channel theme today, one does not seek to advocate either point of view. It is a very complicated issue, with wheels within wheels. But the fact that it is a live theme, is generating controversy which merits focus, and some rational analysis.
One has noticed that either way, conversation can become awfully unfair, bigoted and emotional on the evergreen issue of whether Indian channels should be allowed or not on Pakistani cable networks. The thought at the back of the mind being that Indian offensive against Pakistan is on. So, patriotism.
Having said this, one cannot but look backwards at time past when a ban was imposed by the government of the day on Indian films being screened in Pakistan, in the early sixties, with the goal being to protect Pakistani cinema. That ban stays. There were then militant protagonists and equally passionate antagonists of Indian films being banned in Pakistan. That divide, evidently, despite the passage of four decades, remains. In fact, there also came about a ban on Indian newspapers, magazines, periodicals and books, and that, too, stays.
However, with time, and over the years, Indian audio-visual material steadily streams into Pakistan, and both public opinion and technology have facilitated this ‘undoing of the ban’. In the context of the Indian cinema alone, it is pertinent to mention the birth and growth of the enormous complex of sale of foreign cinema and video material at Karachi’s Rainbow Centre, in the heart of Saddar; the centre being considered one of a kind in Asia, in fact. Intellectual property rights being almost a lost cause?
In passing, one would like to refer to the appeal that the Cable Operators Association of Pakistan (Karachi and Lahore) has made to the president and prime minister citing 10 reasons to question “why is the government closing down popular entertainment channels.”
After listing out the reasons the Association has hoped that the government will come up with a ‘positive response’. It is relevant to mention here that the ban on Indian channels (primarily entertainment=oriented) was re-enforced earlier this month after a brief period of leniency which was witnessed, recently. Citizens assumed that this latitude was extended to the cable operators because a certain peace process had been initiated between India and Pakistan. The ban had been reimposed on Dec 30, 2001.
That was politics. But the Chairman of the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Pemra), Mian Javed, in an APP statement carried on Aug 3, 2003, said that the reimposed ban had nothing to do with politics. He mentioned economic implications, as most of the Indian channels were attracting Pakistani advertisements substantially.
Now cable operators are disallowed even the screening of Indian films via DVDs and VCDs. Of course the cable operators are going to lose financially, and the public will switch over to Indian videos and films on cassettes and CDs. Or be content with the Pakistani channels or the private channels that are shown via satellite from the Gulf, or English-language western channels.
One discerning citizen who believes in, what he regards as, the eventual victory of technology over everything else, (Indian, Pakistani or western, alien or native) is amazed at such bans that comes from time to time. He argues that it is futile to have these bigoted bans, as one way or another the people do manage to have their way. They are able to see what they want, or hear what they want to, or read whatever they want. It is steadily and surely a technological win, regardless.
But there is an equally strongly presented case by those who believe that it is the duty, and the moral responsibility of not just authority, but also sensible farsighted public opinion, and lobbyists to ensure that the finer values of Pakistani society be protected from all ‘alien’ values. In fact, these people contend that even the English language western channels, for example, or other liberal channels should also be restricted, if not altogether eliminated. The big question that is difficult and impossible to answer is this: How good and effective can censorship be in this day and age? There is also a reference to the world of the Internet where official curbs have been imposed (or supposedly so) to black out or ‘barricade’ the obscene and the pornographic.
A local teacher of sociology when asked to contemplate on how he saw the future of Indian channels on Pakistani cable, he explained that the debate/controversy on this score is likely to last longer, if not forever. It has something to do with the Pakistan-India relationship, and in the perceptions, in each country are symbolic of uncertainty and fear in the mind.
However, what is possible is that while official and public attitudes may unfold and weave through the psychological and sociological fabric, a blend of love and hate, technology may prove to be the ultimate winner. It will facilitate and break down barriers giving the individual the ultimate choice. Democratic option?
The choice at the moment, with the Indian channel off again, is this: the PTV channels, Pakistani private channels, and various western and English language channels, Arabic, Chinese, Persian, Turkish, German and a solitary Bangladeshi one. Pemra allows 49 channels, it is reported, and of these, 32 are in English, a language that the majority doesn’t understand! Not a very comfortable context for most viewers, says a Karachiite who foresees that once again it is time for watching more videos and DVDs. Another Karachiite forwards the opinion that it is time that people will begin considering technical options (like dish antenna and decoder) which will enable residential units and apartment complexes to have their own cable networks.
Is this a war of values and ethos, or is it one that is essentially commercial? Is there a deeper political game that is so covert? Is it time that public opinion on this be determined? Were that to happen, what would be its credibility as we are such a distrusting people, in such a deceptive world, really.
A word about the ban on Indian films here, imposed in the 1960s. It failed to develop Pakistani cinema and see the quality of the film industry, and how cinema houses have steadily closed down business. Do we think at all, dear citizen?
PAKISTANI immigrants returning home after the 9/11 events in America can help the national economy only temporarily with the money they are bringing back. They belong to the less hard-working group of Pakistanis in the US, many of whom went there illegally but now even have green cards. It is they, not the highly educated ones who have contributed to American growth, who are returning.
‘They would not help Pakistan much except with some money’, said a US-based Pakistani businessman, Shaukat Ali Chauhan, while talking to Dawn here recently. Living abroad for the last many years, he brings to bear an international perspective on the issue of returning Pakistanis and the challenges being faced by other nationals of this country living in America.
He agreed that due to the harassment and humiliation of Muslims across the US, especially under the stiff home security laws, many Pakistanis were thinking of coming back.
‘They (the security officials) investigate and watch Muslims and their mosques, they investigate at airports people coming from Muslim countries’. While the highly educated Pakistanis in the US are not scared, still all this can be offputting. However, by leaving America, the Pakistanis might as well be doing precisely what certain rival religious groups there might be wanting them to do.
Islam being the fastest growing religion in America, there are lobbies working against Muslims there. They are spreading negative propaganda through the media against the Muslims and their faith, he warned. These lobbies include Zionists, right-wing Christians and Hindus who have now got a golden opportunity. But, emphasized Chauhan, the US is everybody’s country. There are a lot of opportunities there in all fields. Anybody who works hard wins, regardless of race or religion.
A major factor behind the return of immigrants is that they, like most Muslims, have not accepted the US as their country. Pakistanis in the US proceed from the belief that ‘we have to go back and that we are here temporarily’. Chauhan, projecting into the future, wants Pakistanis in America to accept the US as ‘our next generation’s country’. He asked them to stay in the US and become strong, politically and economically, by getting involved in the American system and influencing US policy.
He regretted that Muslims were currently confused. But, he argued, there were benefits of a long-term approach of creating a foothold in the US. American foreign policy is made keeping in view business interests. In this context, he specifically referred to India which, he said, was a business minded country. America also benefited from business with India. Nevertheless, this is not a barrier to forging deeper links with the US. Unfortunately, we keep ourselves isolated. There are millions of Jews in the US. If they protest and contact American officials, the latter would take notice. On the other hand, not even one per cent of the Muslims living in America would contact US officials against their country’s policy. Who would then be on our side? he asked. To extricate Muslims from the morass of humiliation and degradation, ‘we must be part of the American system and become more involved in it instead of being isolated’.
Pakistanis in the US can help influence that country by becoming more civilized, he observed. They can help their country by helping the poor. Can’t they (the Pakistanis) discard the culture of fake degrees and false documents? he questioned, adding it was time we improved our character and showed good deeds in business and social life as well as donated towards humanitarian causes. —JAVED BASHIR