| Submit your comments on this article |
| India-Pakistan |
| Free for all? |
| 2009-04-15 |
| By Ejaz Haider An article carried by The News ("An open letter to Gen Kayani"; April 14) by Harish Puri, a former Indian army colonel, raises a host of questions. (See here) One question, up front, is obvious: would the free media of India have published similar advice to the Indian army chief by a Pakistani officer? The categorical answer is no. Why? There are several reasons. India has managed to develop, and credit is due her on that score, a sense of nationalism that not just binds its various institutions, civil and military, in the formation of the state but also draws its civil society into that nexus, at least those sections that matter in the initial evolution of such a consensus. This helps India in behaving as a unitary actor in formulating and pushing policies, especially those catalogued under the generic rubric of national security. In theory, all states can do it. The issue of consensus has to do with the broader acceptance of those policies. Please note that this consensus has a horrible flipside: it tends to develop internal structural constraints over time that can deny a state flexibility of response, but that is another topic; neither does this consensus in India involve, by any stretch, everyone who holds an Indian passport. But, to the extent of whether the state can express itself with one voice on most, if not all, issues, India has evolved such a consensus and is in the process of pulling in even those who currently remain on the periphery or are outside it. To this end the state has used multiple means: relatively stable political institutions and processes; respect for the constitution; a sound higher judiciary; a professional military that accepts civilian supremacy; growing economic clout; an expanding middle class; and, lest anyone ignore the most important fact, ruthless coercion when necessary and against those groups that defy the Indian state. That the Indian state has always been a hard-as-nails state compared to a much softer Pakistan is because it has been a democracy and has managed to develop a coercive majoritarian consensus for the exercise not just of its external sovereignty but, more importantly, its internal writ. Therefore, if a Pakistani officer were to write an open letter to the Indian army chief on, say how that army should behave in Kashmir and inform him on how the Indian army should leave behind its memories of the 1962 debacle, it would be trashed by any Indian editor without a second thought. The point is not to argue that we must emulate what an Indian editor would do but to raise some questions about why such an article should find place in a Pakistani newspaper. First, is it important to debate the point and thrust of such an article, an exercise to determine whether printing it would serve any purpose -- and by purpose let us assume here that we mean changing the institutional direction of the Pakistan Army which, as the article states, is supposed to be perfidious both in relation to its neighbours and internally? This is an important question because institutional perfidy of Pakistan Army is exactly what the underlying message of this article is. The argument is clever, combine as it does the concerns of civil society in Pakistan about the Army's role with India's concern over the role of the Pakistan Army vis-Ã -vis itself. This message the Indian colonel conveys by highlighting the fact that the Pakistan Army has been an irresponsible outfit both internally and externally. While it was defeated by India, that defeat came in the face of its brutalities in the erstwhile East Pakistan. But even as it (Pakistan Army) ruthlessly operated against the Bengalis, it has cowed in the face of the ferocious Taliban. It is interesting how he throws in bits about the Pakistan Army's professionalism. This he does not to contradict his other negative assertions about the Pakistan Army but to strengthen the overall argument about the latter's perfidy. Deconstruct this discourse to see how he appeals to the liberal minds in Pakistan. Are we, as editors, required to do this exercise of deconstruction? I think we are. As editors we can always say that newspapers can print all sorts of viewpoints. Fair enough. But can, or should, this general acceptance of all viewpoints prevent us from establishing certain standards both in terms of judging the quality of an article as well as the broader implications of printing it. Let me be a little more specific. To argue that newspapers must print everything, and here I am assuming that the quality of what is being printed is not disputed, implies that in our professional capacity we are only faithful to our craft; that nothing matters beyond that. Do we always act in and through such purity of form, even assuming that we can? The answer is no. When General Pervez Musharraf (retd) sacked the Chief Justice of Pakistan, the media took up that cause and many of us acted more as citizens of Pakistan than "pure" journalists. Indeed, we used the power we wield as journalists in the service of what we thought was in the interest of civil society with us being members of that over and above our professional calling as journalists. Drawing the personal-professional line, as I have often stated, is difficult even in societies that are not disjointed. In such a one as ours, it is almost impossible. But then it also proves my point that purity of form is difficult to maintain and as editors we cannot dismiss the context in which we print something and, more importantly, afford to ignore the implications of what we print. Not just that, we keep crossing the line between being citizens and professional journalists. In this specific case, we have another problem too. Could this article also find place in Jang or its contents run on GEO? While there is nothing to prevent the editors of The News from acting independently of sister organisations within their group, the question becomes pertinent in relation to broader policy. It is difficult to accept being subjected to two extremes from the same conglomerate. For instance, while the article by the Indian colonel castigates the Pakistan Army for standing by and allowing Swat to go under, the group's other media outlets have been congratulating the nation for the parliament having taken the correct decision on Swat. Here we also get into another problem: how can we talk about democracy and civilian supremacy while goading the Army, even if indirectly, into violating the constitutional compact, given what the ANP has been insisting on and how the political actors have been behaving in relation to counter-insurgency and counter-terrorism efforts? In fact, regardless of whether Charlie's aunt and I accept that, much of the media has actually created the conditions under which Pakistanis reject the idea of a threat perception from the extremists and have decided, through parliament, to take a political course of action on Swat -- surrender rather than fight it out. The point is, none of these questions is being debated even as we, in the media, subject the nation to extremes. It is difficult to accept that our trade presupposes a free for all. Ejaz Haider is Consulting Editor of The Friday Times and Op-Ed Editor of Daily Times |
| Posted by:john frum |