EVEN the President General Musharraf’s most ardent opponents are unable to dispute the fact that under his regime the press and electronic media have never been as free as they are now to express whatever views they wish to report whatever facts they find — mostly right, sometimes wrong.
From 1999 onwards, the press has carried anti-General Pervez Musharraf columns and reports written by diehard democrats, upholders of the Constitution, and those opposed to any form of military rule. By and large, the president has not reacted.
There have been a couple of unfortunate and foolish incidents on occasions when he has allowed himself to rise to the bait and to name and castigate publicly several individual journalists whom he considered had gone overboard in relation to the ‘national interest’. That went down badly, nationally and internationally, and many adverse comments were expressed.
The electronic media has flourished. The number of private channels has multiplied rabbit-like over the past five years or so and all are generally allowed a free run to criticise and lambaste the president, his government and administration. But, here again, there have been unfortunate lapses.
These channels have had and are still having dozens of field days since the March 9 happening, on which day the president, furthering press freedom, made the most ridiculous and damaging gesture and summoned the state controlled television channel to show him in his military uniform humiliating a black-coated Chief Justice of Pakistan. If ever there was a monumental blunder in the name of freedom of expression, this was it.
All this is the upside. On the downside we have certain actions taken by the government and the agencies against individuals and publications who and which for reasons undisclosed (but which can easily be fathomed out) they feel have endangered their policies.
All this has been set out in a letter dated April 27, 2007, addressed to General Pervez Musharraf, President of Pakistan, by Brad Adams, Executive Director of the US-based Human Rights Watch.
The HRW is firstly concerned with the “increasing attempts by the Pakistan government to muzzle the media.” The cases cited include attempts to silence Aaj TV, the banning of Sindh TV for a fortnight, instructions to the Punjab government to take ARY off the air, the refusal to renew the licence of Mast FM103, the banning of a weekly BBC-made programme critical of the government handling of the 2005 earthquake aftermath, the attack on Geo TV on March 13 which was aired by that channel and beamed all over the world, and “improper pressures” on this publication.
One fact given in support of the HRW accusations is that in October, 2002, prior to the coming of this incredibly awful government, Pakistan ranked 119 out of 166 in the Reporters Sans Frontieres Press Freedom Index, and by December 2006 it had slipped to 157. This dismally reflects the quality of our democratic freely and fairly elected government.
Dawn, “one of Pakistan’s most highly regarded newspapers, well known for high standards of journalism and the integrity and honesty of its staff,” has suffered. The federal and Sindh governments are accused of pressuring the paper into supporting government policies in Balochistan, in the Afghan border areas, its covert support to militants in Kashmir, various human rights issues, and the matter of dubious ‘disappearances’, cases concerning which were taken up in the Supreme Court by the Chief Justice of Pakistan now under siege.
The pressure took the form of withholding government advertisements, slashing them and the paper’s revenue source, by 60 per cent. Dawn has filed a petition in the Sindh High Court which is being heard.
A television broadcast licence has also been withheld from the Dawn Group despite the fact that it had already been approved by the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority.
As we have so often read, journalists covering the Afghan border areas have been killed, have ‘disappeared’, have been bullied, have been threatened. The same goes for those involved in the Balochistan insurgency.
As Mr Adams gently puts it: “Threatening calls from intelligence, military or unknown sources are a regular hazard for many journalists. These have increased since your March 9 decision to undermine judicial independence by arbitrarily dismissing (should be ‘suspending’) the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. The Pakistan print and electronic media have faced immense pressure, coercion and even violent attacks by your government in order to tone down coverage of anti-government protests and the peaceful campaign to restore the Chief Justice.”
The letter was written before the Sindh government to so brilliantly made the private news channels disappear from the air waves on the evening of Saturday May 5, though they were being aired elsewhere all over the country showing the epic journey of Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry from Islamabad to Lahore.
Then, of course, as we who write know too well, “the government has sought to, and frequently succeeded in, forcing publications to engage in self-censorship.”
Mr Adams has urged General Musharraf and his government “to act in accordance with the Johannesburg Principles on National Security, Freedom of Expression and Access to Information standards drafted by international law and global rights experts in 1995 and endorsed by the United Nations special rapporteurs on freedom of expression and on the independence of judges and lawyers.”
Principle 19 of these standards provides that “governments may not prevent journalists from entering areas where there are reasonable grounds to believe that violations of human rights or humanitarian law are being or have been committed. Governments may not exclude journalists or representatives of such organisations from areas that are experiencing violence or armed conflict except where their presence would pose a clear risk to the safety of others.”
Accordingly, the government of Pakistan stands accused of having consistently violated this particular principle in the tribal areas, in Balochistan and in Pakistan-administered Kashmir. And, tellingly and undeniably: “Your government’s failure to allow freedom of expression as required by international law has become yet another symbol of the lack of rule of law in Pakistan…”
Mr Adams ended: “I look forward to your reply.” If there has been a reply, would it not be fitting that it should be published in our press?