HOW many of us would answer 'yes' without a second thought? How many would be angered by the question? How many would vehemently shoot it down with a negative?

What we all do know is the fact that there are many press people on the payroll of our governments (any and all governments) who will report as directed on any manifestly incorrect government stance. Some of the payroll lot have been given awards -- medals and cash. Some have crawled out from the shadow of their mentors and been roughed up or incarcerated. Our governments are and will remain weak, under suspicion, and the game will continue until Kingdom Come.

As reported on March 28, the chief reporter of 'The News', Shakil Shaikh, was picked up at gun point in broad daylight in the vicinity of Islamabad's main commercial centre.

Armed men in a high-powered jeep, with no number plates, followed his car, forcibly stopped him on the Kashmir Highway near the Margalla Hotel, dragged him out of the car, covered his head, tied his hands, threw him into their jeep and beat him up. These unidentified men then drove him to a deserted area near the Soan Garden Housing Scheme and, reportedly, continued thrashing him for three hours. The kidnappers repeatedly told him 'You write too much. Now you will not write any more.' They threatened to kidnap his wife, children and parents were he not to change his 'attitude' (the 'attitude' was not specified).

'We are kamis (servants) and ranghars (members of a Punjabi tribe)', was how the attackers described themselves. They took his two mobile cell phones, his tape recorder and his wallet. They left him in the woods to lick his wounds. He later found his own car parked nearby, drove himself home, and was then taken to PIMS for treatment.

The editor of 'The News' and Shakil's fellow press people have naturally strongly condemned the attack, demanded an enquiry, and the arrest of the culprits. They have described the incident as a 'blatant attack on the freedom of the press' and have lodged a report at the Secretariat police station.

Interior Secretary Tasneem Noorani has 'condemned' the incident and made the usual official noises about taking all possible measures to trace the assailants. The Chief of Staff to the COAS, Lt General Ghulam Ahmed Khan has enquired after Shakil9s health, as has Federal Information Secretary Syed Anwar Mahmood. The Principal Information Officer, Ashiq Gondal, visited him in hospital.

The whole tone of the incident suggests that it could possibly be the doing of one of the many 'agencies' with orders not necessarily having emanated from on high, or even halfway up.

The ever vigilant New York based Committee for the Protection of Journalists (CPJ) has picked up the news item and issued a statement on March 30 urging the Chief Executive to publicly declare that his administration would not allow journalists to be attacked with impunity by ensuring that the men who brutalized Shakil Shaikh be brought to justice. The CPJ has appealed to the military authorities to apprehend and prosecute the assailants 'who clearly indicated that their purpose was to silence Shaikh.'

Following form, the CPJ must have pressed the button and sent copies of their communication for information and necessary action to, inter alia, the American Society of Newspaper Editors, Amnesty International, Article 19 (UK), Article 19 (The Netherlands), Congressional Committee to Support Writers and Journalists, Freedom House, Human Rights Watch, Index on Censorship, International Association of Broadcasting, International Federation of Journalists, International Federation of Newspaper Publishers, International Journalism Institute, International PEN, International Press Institute, National Association of Black Journalists, National Press Club, Newspaper Association of America, The Newspaper Guild of North American National Broadcasters Association, Reporteurs Sans Frontieres, Overseas Press Club, the Society of Professional Journalists, World Press Freedom Committee.

The question I ask: Whoever be the hamhanded operation manager, and if a government agency man, does he realize the harm such incidents cause to the reputation of this country, already shredded and in tatters? Obviously not. He is most likely to be uneducated in the true sense of the word.

What Musharraf could do is to set his forces to work to find out exactly who the assailants were and why they found it necessary, or thought it useful, to act in such manner? If they turn out to be underlings of his government he should ensure that they are properly punished and made an example of, so that no such incidents recur. If they be nothing to do with his administration and acting on behalf of some other party or grouping or individual, the same should happen.

The general has finally told us what we have suspected for long, that he is not retiring on his due retirement date. No news. No surprise. To many of us, he remains the best option, in view of what alternatives we have on the ground. He is in command and will remain so for as long as his army backs him. From what we can judge, he is broadminded, unbigoted, uncorrupt. He is worth helping.

What we must do is get the economy going. A difficult task in view of the state of the country and the deserved hostility towards it. For instance, when an American wishes to travel to Pakistan to perhaps set up a business he checks into the US government official website to find out what he can about the country. The first word he will read on the lengthy blurb flashed up to him on Pakistan is 'Warning' in bold print. He is informed that the Department of State warns US citizens to evaluate carefully the implications for their security and safety before deciding to travel to Pakistan. Information received by the US government, he reads, suggests a continued need for vigilance on the part of American citizens resident in or travelling through Pakistan. Because, the US government has received 'a growing body of information that suggests strongly that extremists based in Afghanistan are preparing to attack US interests in Pakistan in the near future.'

It alerts its citizens to the presence of an international terrorist, one Osama bin Laden, who lives in neighbouring Afghanistan, sheltered by his friends the Taliban, who has the sympathy and support of his fellow Muslims in Pakistan. All US citizens, resident in or travelling through Pakistan are urged to take all steps to increase their security awareness.

On the subject of tension between India and Pakistan over the military situation in Kargil, Kashmir, the prospective visitor learns that though this may have declined there are extremist groups in Pakistan who have voiced their opposition to the role played by the Pakistan government in de-escalation. He reads how in the past such groups have issued threats against the US government, and its citizens and facilities overseas.

Organized or flash rallies, demonstrations and processions occur from time to time throughout Pakistan and often take on an anti-western or anti-American character. In Karachi and the southern parts of Punjab periods of protracted political and sectarian violence have been common, and such violence may pose a potential danger to American travellers. The reader is warned that during the period of protracted religious observance such as the one month of Ramazan and ten days of Muharram, sectarian violence is on the increase.

It continues on in the same vein.

This information is dated September 1999, but as far as the US government is concerned it remains fully valid. The military government has made not a whit of a difference.

Should the General and his men not make some sort of an effort to have this 'warning' changed for the better? By doing nothing about it, by seemingly being content with how things are, the risk is that a worse scenario will emerge.