In times such as these, what is the first duty of the press? Not to bang the drums of patriotism for that is best left to self-appointed defenders of the faith and national ideology. Not to tout the need for 'responsible behaviour' for that is something which governments excel in doing.

The job of the press is not to press certitudes or reinforce established modes of thinking. If the press is at all faithful to its calling, it must forever keep stoking the fires of scepticism, asking questions, the more irreverent the better, laughing at established verities, and sprinkling public discourse with healthy doses of cynicism.

Responsibility and positive thinking are virtues of government, the necessary concomitants of being in power. All governments have a vested interest in order and stability. For this reason no government likes its citizens to ask too many questions. If the American people were to get into the questioning mode, what would become of George Bush's intended war on Iraq?

Governments thrive on lies and deceit, dictatorships as much as democracies, the raw truth being an enemy of power. That is why the services of spin doctors who can cook the truth to make it more palatable are so highly prized. The press has to make up its mind which side it is on. It can either be a hireling, a role into which, with a little encouragement, it can easily fall, or it can be on the other side of the fence, subverting authority and holding up a candle to whatever passes for the truth.

In established democracies the press is very much a part of the establishment. The New York Times, the Washington Post or the London Times are careful about what they write, their 'freedom' being tempered with a great deal of 'responsibility'. You'll never catch any of these mighty organs blowing the whistle on the murkier aspects of their countries' policies. Just like their governments they look at Israel through a shared prism of blind partiality, at Iraq through the same prism of unblinking hostility.

During the Vietnam war it took some time for the American press to turn against the government. The anti-war protests on campuses came first. Only later did the press chime in with the public mood.

There is a compelling reason for these pro-establishment tendencies. In the older democracies the great questions of war and peace have been settled for some time. A broad consensus exists about the direction of national policy. Dissent or criticism is about everyday issues, very rarely about the fundamentals of policy.

How different is our situation. We have yet to settle basic issues. Even after 55 years of existence as an independent nation the governing class has yet to straighten out its politics, yet to decide what kind of system is best for the country. French presidential or British parliamentary? Or generals lording it over the national turf?

General Musharraf cannot claim the gift of novelty for his political theories. All his military forbears who seized power in their time spoke the same language, dabbled in the same ideas, ultimately came to grief on the rock of the same fallacies.

If the press adopts a wheedling, pussyfooting tone in such a situation it means that it is becoming a junior appendage of the establishment. If it is to have any relevance it must shun such a role like the plague and cross the tracks. Only by becoming subversive of the established order, only by becoming strident, raucous, combating and questioning can it remain true to its purpose. At the barricades, but on the other side of them, is where it should always be.

Bishops, schoolmasters, bureaucrats and military officers--all those favoured individuals who have a vested interest in order and stability--can't be expected to sympathize with such an attitude. They would call it negative and irresponsible. But then anything out of the ordinary, anything not conforming to their notions of propriety and respectability will elicit the same reaction.

The only propriety the journalistic troubadour should bother himself with is that of idiom and syntax. His words and sentences, the tools of his trade, should be appropriate to the matter he is discussing. Apart from this he should not pay too much attention to propriety as this notion is generally understood by Rotarians, business executives and other members of the drawing room classes.

Does this sound too superior and smug? It is not intended to sound like that. A journalist has no claims to superiority. He should only be able to swim against the tide, to second-guess received opinions. He should take nothing on trust. He must have the talent to smile at the piety and the higher sort of humbug which distinguish politics in every country, whether Pakistan or the United States. He should not be taken in by any of this.

All of us have our share of bombast. All of us have an exaggerated opinion of our abilities. Is General Musharraf the best thing to happen to Pakistan since Jinnah? Doubtless there are people around Musharraf who think along these lines. It is the job of the journalist to bring a sardonic eye to such manifestations of the human condition.In greater or lesser degree people in authority are cocooned from reality. They are placed in such a way that they are guarded against the hearing of disagreeable things. The factotums around them consider it their duty to speak only in soft tones and to present even harsh things in a soft light.

The higher one goes the more isolated one becomes. This is one of the hazards of power. As one George Reedy points out in a 1970's book, The Twilight of the Presidency: " (In the United States), the aura of reverence that surrounds the president when he is in the Mansion is so universal that the slightest hint of criticism automatically labels a man as a colossal lout."

Here's another passage, this one from a book I have just been reading, Resignation in Protest. "During the worst days of the Tet offensive, President Johnson continued to be reassured by key members of his team both at home and in Saigon that disaster was, in fact, victory; that Hanoi had decided to go for broke only because it was tired and discouraged. Various senior cabinet officials and White House staffers have remarked that W. W. Rostow's effectiveness with Johnson was enhanced by his dogged optimism and pessimistic reports were usually ambushed by Rostow before they could reach the President's desk."

As another US president prepares for another war, this time against Iraq, there is little reason to believe that things have greatly changed in the White House or that dogged optimism is still not part of the prevailing atmosphere.

But factotums and staffers are not to be blamed for they are only doing their duty. Sycophancy and making life easier for their boss is part of their job description. Not so for the journalist who is not under the same compulsion. Staff member to nothing except his own sense of what his calling demands, he does his job best when he mocks and questions and tries to see the other side of things.

When a country is looking for a prime minister the journalist of course must try to find out who the likely candidates are. He must weigh their chances and make an informed guess about the frontrunner. But he must also try to make sense of the bigger confusion. He must ask himself whether in a situation such as Pakistan's it makes the slightest difference whether the prime minister is X or Y.

As much for his own sake as for that of his readers, he must ask what Pakistan's basic problem is. And if the answer is too many generals commanding the national landscape then he must ask what difference to this situation a prime minister will make.

In short, the press must always ask the probing questions. The press is not in the public relations business. Its relationship with authority must always remain adversarial for it is only from that standpoint that it can best discharge its duty to itself and to the country whose good it seeks to promote.