Media-military relations
By: Imtiaz Alam
The appointment of the Judicial Commission to investigate Saleem Shahzad’s case and other related issues is a welcome development that may discourage those who are in the habit of intimidating the media.
While Saleem Shahzad’s case is a test case for the investigating agencies to unearth the truth and an exceptional opportunity to break with the culture of impunity, there are other related macro issues that need to be deliberated upon to prompt such heinous crimes and uncalled for confrontation between the media and the government and its security agencies. The case, besides criminal investigations, should be evaluated in the broader context of a pattern of intimidation, arm twisting of media (persons and organizations), freedom of expression, right to know, security of whistle-blowers/messengers/reporters/analysts, especially covering or commenting on conflict, professional hazards of conflict reporting and media-military relations.
Being a journalist and media rights activist, the objective of my appearance before the Commission is not to malign any person or any security institution that I regard as the pivotal bulwark of our national security, but to help the Commission to look into the broader picture and recommend ways to avoid such controversies, safeguard journalists and the sanctity of their profession, on the one hand, and help various government agencies evolve a modus operandi that is lawful, useful and honorable and in conformity with fundamental human rights, civil and political rights and the Johannesburg Principles (1995).
Saleem Shahzad’s brutal murder took place against the backdrop of the humiliation of the Abbottabad operation and an investigative report by the deceased journalist about the terrorist attack on the Mehran Naval Base in Karachi that exposed the vulnerability of our valuable strategic assets at the hands of Pakistan’s Number One Enemy–the terrorists. Mr Shahzad’s kidnapping and death due to torture sent a wave of anger and fear across the media community, which came out on the streets to demand a probe into the ghastly act. Although the ISI denied the allegation, fingers were raised against the agency whom the deceased had himself blamed for possible harm. The suspicion about ISI’s involvement might not have held ground had the same officer not made threatening calls to various journalists, including myself, regarding their views/reports that he thought to be inimical to Pakistan’s interests.
This was the time when the armed forces had come under greater critical scrutiny. Event after event–from Abbotabad to the Mehran base, Kharotabad (Russians’ murder) to Karachi (Sarfaraz case) and Saleem Shahzad’s gruesome murder–kept the media’s focus on the conduct of law enforcement agencies and the defense apparatus to the annoyance of the powers that be. A very tough statement issued after the 139th Corps Commanders meeting saw it as an attempt to “drive a wedge between the armed forces, organs of the state and the nation” and resolved to “put an end to it (unfortunate trend)”. I understand the kind of pressure being built on our armed forces and appreciate the difficulties they are facing in their and the nation’s fight against terrorism. They need our and the entire nation’s fullest and unflinching support to root out this scourge.
That said, Pakistan has a long history of unconstitutional military rule, censorship and both intimidation of the media and its co-option by dictators. We have seen a protracted struggle of both the media and civil/political society for freedom of expression, a free press, democracy and fundamental rights. From Ayub Khan to Yahya Khan, Ziaul Haq to Musharraf, we have seen the brutalization of civil society, muzzling of the press, marginalization of civilian structures, including representative institutions, the judiciary, civil service, political parties and the media. The expansion of the military establishment’s writ to strategic civilian spheres continued even after the exit of military dictators, under various civilian dispensations. This is what characterizes the tension in civil-military and media-military relations.
A typical policy of carrot and stick pursued by both military dictators and civilian rulers produced two types of media role models: the darbari or toddy types and defiantly professional types. Those who learnt the art of sycophancy and changed their ideologies and betrayed the callings of their profession turned out to be most ‘successful’ and those who were romantic or professionals stuck to their ideals and kept the sanctity of their profession above every temptation, faced all kinds of persecution and turned out ‘failures’. The worst periods were of Ayub Khan’s, who took over Progressive Papers Ltd and created the Press Trust, Yahya Khan’s, who slaughtered journalists and the intelligentsia who opposed his military action in East Pakistan, and worst of all General Zia’s who co-opted the so-called Islamists who declared him Amir-ul-Momineen and lashed out at those who dared to stand up to his hypocrisy by either throwing them out of the profession or sending them to jail.
As access to power is a source of greater privileges in the third world, a new breed of successful journalists also came to the fore and they were those who had access to information that was available to only a few under authoritarian dispensations. The censorship regime also flourished during military governments and oversight by military personnel extended to the newsrooms. Journalists were hired on an extra payroll to do the dirty work, which continued even after the military ruler was gone. An interesting phenomenon came to bloom during General Musharraf’s time, who learnt his lesson from the Kargil misadventure and realized the importance of the role of the media, and allowed its expansion as a part of his overall strategy. He also encouraged the penetration of intelligence agencies to keep control of what had become uncontrollable. The struggle to win back civilian space peaked when the movement for the restoration of an independent judiciary was joined by a buoyant electronic media who also came under attack for making joint cause with the lawyers and civil society.
Post-9/11, as the war against terrorism started and conflict expanded to far flung regions, conflict reporting became the major preoccupation of the media—both print and electronic. Quite a large number of journalists found reporting conflict a dangerously flourishing undertaking. That is why, as in other conflicts, the casualties of journalists peaked in our country and it became the most dangerous place for journalists in the world. Given the vulnerability of journalists in conflict reporting and their professional urge for stories from the battlefield and from inside the warring parties, including the jihadi outfits and the military and its agencies, they felt the need to get embedded with various parties to the conflict.
Conflict reporting became a complicated and dangerous job, given the most treacherous nature of infinite warring factions and various local and international agencies engaged in their wars for turf. Musharraf’s dual policy of appeasing both the warring camps further confused the whole scene, sending conflicting signals to the world, the jihadis and his own establishment. The most hypocritical policy secretly conceded everything the US demanded while denying it in public to keep a dubious façade, such as on drones, etc. On the one hand our valiant soldiers were fighting the terrorists who were attacking the innocent civilians and our soldiers, on the other hand other operatives were being asked to provide sanctuaries to those he thought will provide him some bargaining chips.
That not only confused many in the security establishment, but also sent conflicting signals to the journalists who were either embedded or in their professional zeal tried to expose the real face of various parties to the conflict. Most journalists who were caught in the crossfire of the conflict or lost their lives in target killing by state or non-state actors became victims of this planned but confusing war theatre. As the war theatre expanded and got more and more confusing, the intelligence agencies tried to bring more and more media persons and organizations on board. Not only some of those who were embedded became the victims of their armed critique when they broke with the line, most of those brave journalists who remained loyal to their professional code fell to the guns of mercenaries.
Two lessons are to be drawn from this muddy experience:
One, journalists should seek information from wherever it is coming, but should neither become part of, nor spy for one warring group or the other, including security organizations and militant outfits. They must adhere to their professional code of conduct while taking all safety measures. But it still remains a professional hazard to report conflict objectively, fearlessly and impartially.
Two, the security and intelligence agencies should also draw a clear line not to exceed their lawful limits, which brings a bad name to their professional institutions. The ISI must deflate its larger-than-life image, focus on its mandated job and evolve a transparent policy in its relationship with the media. It should drastically rethink its media-engagement policy and stop keeping an army of pseudo-journalists on its payroll who have proved to be good for nothing. It must stop those elements within who indulge in any manner in unlawful acts of harassing citizens and journalists that brings a bad name to an otherwise most effective arm of our national security. I hope the ISI under General Pasha’s able and credible leadership will take all possible measures to clean up his institution of all unscrupulous elements and stop dreaming to control the uncontrollable–the media of the new cyber age.
I propose the following:
1 Besides investigating Saleem Shahzad’s case, the Judicial Commission must expand its mandate to address the pattern of intimidation of journalists, the media-military relationship, secret funds to manipulate the media, issues of freedom of expression and right to know, security of and insurance coverage for media persons, some institutional arrangement, such as an ombudsman, to provide protection to journalists under threat. The Commission should open its proceedings to the public.
2 All cases of target killing of journalists should be investigated and the culprits must be brought to book. The Commission must supervise the investigation into the kidnapping and murder of Saleem Shahzad and probe all alleged suspects with the cooperation of various agencies.
3 The ISI must clear its name in Saleem Shahzad’s case in its enlightened self-interest and investigate the conduct of its often-named media handler, Rear Admiral Adnan Nazir, and others who have been threatening journalists. Other agencies, including IB and the Navy, must also explain their conduct regarding the media.
4 The armed forces, paramilitary forces, and their intelligence agencies, the IB and other secret agencies must evolve a clear policy and code of conduct of embedding journalists and keep out of the business of controlling the media. In their own institutional interest, they should critically rethink media-military relations while respecting freedom of expression and the right to know. There are better ways to do things rather than adopting rough and counter-productive tactics.
5 The Media Code of Ethics must be observed by journalists in reporting conflict.
6 Journalists should be provided risk and life insurance coverage by both the government and the media employers. Training in conflict reporting, safety measures and kits, besides security to be provided by the security agencies, are some of the measures that should be undertaken.
7 Freedom of expression must be respected in the light of the Johannesburg Principles (1995) and all state functionaries be sensitized about them. The proposed Freedom of Information draft should be presented before Parliament for approval and rules may be framed immediately.
8 Ombudsmen may be appointed at federal, provincial and FATA levels with the powers of a Supreme/High Court Judge to entertain all complaints regarding harassment and killing of journalists. Similarly, all media organizations must also appoint an autonomous and effective ombudsman in their respective organizations to entertain all complaints against media persons.
9 The interference of agencies in the media profession must be stopped by the leadership of the armed forces and complaint cells created in all security agencies to entertain the complaints of citizens against the excesses of their officials.
10 All secret funds held by the Information Ministry, other ministries and secret agencies regarding media should be regularly scrutinized by a joint committee of parliament.
Source: Daily Times
Date:7/15/2011
” 
” 
” 
” 
” 
