(This report has been produced through official collaboration between Internews Pakistan and Green Press Pakistan)

Chapter 1

Grace Under Pressure

Even at best of times, media freedoms in Pakistan have always been far less than desirable. Journalists in the country have to work within pressures, restrictive boundaries of semi-coercive laws and far-from-perfect working conditions.

Despite this, the tenacity and pluck of Pakistani journalists in an atmosphere of political instability and in the face of unfriendly governments deserves appreciation. Even in non-conducive conditions, they have continuously managed to exercise courage and in general managed to stay true to their calling.

The period under review in this report – 3 May 2002 to 3 May 2003 – proved to be no exception to the conditions the media in general and the press in particular in Pakistan has had to operate in over the years. If the chronicle of violations – separately included in this report – is anything to go by, it turned out to be an especially difficult and eventful year for the media in Pakistan .

For their work, one journalist was killed and several injured in separate incidents. While apparently the government was not involved in these violent incidents, in several instances the authorities were instrumental in wilful obstruction of the duties of journalists such as stopping them from reporting or recording or denying them entry to conferences or exhibitions despite carrying valid invitations. In most such cases, the journalists merely happened to be present to cover public events. In some cases, certain reports seemed to have annoyed intelligence agencies, inviting crude interventions.

A Dangerous Undertaking

That the violence against journalists and deliberate interference in their work this past year was spread over several parts of the country show that being a journalist in Pakistan can be a dangerous, and sometimes even fatal, undertaking.

On 20 October 2002, Shahid Soomro, 26, the correspondent in Kandhkot for Hyderabad-based Sindhi daily Kawish, was shot dead resisting a kidnap attempt in front of his house allegedly in reprisal for his reporting on abuses committed during recent general elections held on October 10. Press reports claimed his reporting had angered the recently elected member of the provincial assembly from Kandhkot, Mehboob Bijarani, and that he had received death threats.

According to reports, two brothers of the MP, Waheed Bijarani and Muhammad Bijarani, and three accomplices, arrived at Soomro's house at midnight and called him. When Soomro came out, the assailants tried to kidnap him. They shot him with Kalashnikov and TT pistols when he resisted and then escaped in a car. Soomro was taken to hospital in critical condition but died before getting medical aid. Soomro had a reputation for courageous, independent reporting, and his publication, Kawish, is one of the most influential newspapers in Sindh. Put simply, Soomro was the victim of politicians angered by his reporting on their abuse of power.

Then there was the serious instance of harassment of Muzaffar Ejaz, the managing editor of Urdu-language Karachi daily Jasarat, who was, according to the journalist, picked up by Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI) officials on 24 July 2002 at 11pm as he left his office and threatened with reprisals.

He was interrogated and released five hours later. Ejaz said his abduction was the culmination of a week of harassment following the publication of a controversial story on 16 July 2002 about alleged intelligence involvement in politics that named names in a plan to unify the different factions of the Pakistan Muslim League in the run-up to forthcoming general elections. Zarar Khan, the Associated Press correspondent in Karachi , also received threats for supporting Ejaz.

New Curbs on Free Speech

Overt curbs on freedom of expression were, in the period under review, not restricted to journalists alone but also imposed on performing artistes and in at least once instance on a parliamentarian also. The Islamist government of Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal in the North West Frontier Province bordering Afghanistan , which came to power after the October 2002 elections, launched a campaign against the performing arts, claiming these were obscene and a cause of the spread of vulgarity in society, harassing musicians and the actors community and forcing cinemas to either close down or tone down. In face of growing criticism, in April 2003, a spokesman for the government threatened to institute a mandatory code of practice for journalists in addition to one announced as part of a new law by the federal government.

In another incident, political writer Fazal Wahab was shot dead by unidentified individuals inside a shop in Mingora town in the same province on 21 January 2003. The shopkeeper and his assistant were also killed. Wahab was killed because he had written several controversial books criticising the politics of the local religious leadership. The police failed to give him any protection although he had requested it after receiving death threats.

In 2000, Wahab's book “Mullah ka Kirdar” (The Mullah's Role) was banned amid angry protests. Local clerics immediately issued a religious ruling declaring him a non-believer, leading to his murder. Amnesty International said the author's murder followed efforts by local authorities “to curtail the right of freedom of expression.”

Another serious case involving freedom of expression was that of parliamentarian Rana Sanaullah, the deputy leader of opposition in Punjab Assembly, one of Pakistan 's four provincial legislatures. On the night of 8 March 2003, the leader of former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif's Pakistan Muslim League-N was kidnapped in Faisalabad city by several armed men, who he claimed were intelligence sleuths. For several hours he was tortured – doctors later confirmed he had 22 torture marks all over his body – and his head, moustache and eyebrows shaved off.

Sanaullah has been a severe critic of military role in politics and has been airing his misgivings in the provincial legislature. Under Pakistani law, nothing said on the floor of the legislature by a lawmaker can invite prosecution. The government authorities denied they were behind Sanaullah's torture although he harbours no doubts they were. The police refused to register a report by him.

Another significant event this past year – a positive one this time – was when Pakistan 's most secretive intelligence agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence, sprang a surprise. In March 2003, ISI held two official briefings at its headquarters in Islamabad for journalists, one each for Pakistani and foreign scribes – the first time the secret agency openly feted the press corps. The unprecedented public relationing exercise was focused on dispelling the impression that ISI was not cooperating with the government in its campaign against terrorism and in arresting Al-Qaeda fugitives wanted by the United States suspected of hiding in Pakistan .

Official Freedoms, Private Fears

Perhaps the most momentous development this past year, as far as journalism in Pakistan went, was the promulgation of a set of new press laws. Importantly, the laws, widely rejected by press representatives including owners, editors and working journalists, were issued not by the new elected, civilian government that emerged after the October 2002 elections but by the military regime led by President General Pervez Musharraf, who promulgated them barely days before elections.

The new press laws are troubling because, notwithstanding the government claims that they are reform measures, their bent is on limiting press freedom. The All Pakistan Newspaper Society, which represents the country's publishers, went so far as branding the new laws as “illegitimate, unethical, and unconstitutional.”

The laws make defamation a criminal offence punishable with imprisonment and a fine of at least Rs 50,000 (about US$400 – ten times the average salary of a journalist in Pakistan ), and publishing without a government license punishable by imprisonment. Also mandated is the creation of a Press Council, chaired by a government appointee, with the power to ban publications and issue other punitive sanctions.

A reminder of the taste of things to come was when in November 2003 the government published a warning in the newspapers, banning the media against using or quoting from reports published by US-based online newspaper South Asia Tribune run by self-exiled Pakistani journalist Shaheen Sehbai. The government threatened journalists with the application of one of its new press laws dealing with defamation.

Sehbai left Pakistan after being threatened by the military government for being critical. Many of his webzine's stories implicate the military authorities in corruption and human rights abuses that have been quoted by the press in Pakistan . While the Ministry of Information warning did not explicitly mention Sehbai or his webzine by name, it made reference to “a self-exiled Pakistani journalist” who is “fabricating reports intended to malign the government of Pakistan and its senior civil servants.”

Through the laws enacted in the dying days of the recent-most military regime in Pakistan, the authorities sought to paint the right to communicate as a new and independent right whereas it ought to be firmly established within the framework of existing rights, most importantly the right to freedom of expression.

A free media should be understood as the guarantor of pluralism and equality, a platform where no individual or community can be discriminated against and where everyone can have their stories and views heard. A platform of hard won democracy, even if mostly symbolic.

A free media in Pakistan is not possible if the current media-related laws – detailed analyses on which are included separately in this report – stay in place because they are a bar on the right to communicate. This right should be seen as an umbrella or framework term, encompassing within it a group of related rights including the right to access all information from public bodies that impinges on their lives; the right to pluralism within the media and to equitable access to the means of communication; the right to participate in public decision-making processes; the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas and supporting rights.

Broadcast Media: Bright Spot

While the press media scene remained bleak, the broadcast media realm brought some cheers despite the fact that the Ministry of Telecom and Information Technology went on an absurd spree to impose a telecom access-ban on over 1,000 pornographic websites amid protests by Internet service providers that the measure was slowing down Internet access.

The bright spot was the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority, which in October 2002 granted 22 FM radio licenses in several cities across the country although none of the stations had received the formal permission to begin operations by May 2003. This hitch apart, Pakistan has done well in the period under review to set the ball rolling for what is expected to be nothing short of an electronic media revolution in the country.

When it comes to electronic media opportunities, Pakistan is poised for exciting times ahead. Too bad that can't be said for the print media, which has been burdened with new pressures and restrictions. Print journalists as well as broadcast journalists will have to continue navigating through troubled waters, tackling myriad threats from the government, militant groups, criminal gangs, political parties, and unfriendly intelligence agencies.

For Pakistani journalists, the more things change, the more they remain the same.

Chapter 2

Chronicles of Violations

3 May 2002

Tariq Swati, a cameraman for state-run Pakistan Television was violently attacked by activists of the Hazara Qaumi Mahaz, which supports President Pervez Musharraf in Abbottabad. His attackers were angry at him for not filming their activities long enough during the referendum that elected Musharraf as president for five years. Doctors diagnosed a kidney wound.

11 May 2002

Pakistan arrested British reporter of Indian origin Amardeep Bassey from the border with Afghanistan for alleged spying. The 29-year-old investigations editor from Sunday Mercury had been travelling from Kabul to Peshawar when taken into custody. He originally travelled to the region to take part in a media trip organised by the British Foreign Office and then stayed in Afghanistan to follow up some stories. The Pakistani authorities said he did not have the correct exit visa. He was freed on June 7 after a 27-day detention.

25 June 2003

Hayat Ullah, a freelance correspondent working for several dailies, was detained by US troops in the South Waziristan area of northwest Pakistan bordering Afghanistan . He was held for a week, before being released in July, along with three other journalists who were reporting on American operations in the tribal areas against suspected Al Qaeda operatives. Hayat said he was kept blindfolded and handcuffed for most of the time in detention.

26 June 2002

Activists from Benazir Bhutto's Pakistan Peoples Party attacked the bureau of a weekly Naqqara in Gilgit over refusal to print a statement from their district president. They smashed windows, furniture and telephones and assaulted bureau chief Alamgir Hussain and staff reporter Syed Ali.

15 July 2002

Sheikh Omar Saeed, the principal accused in the kidnapping and murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, was sentenced to death by an anti-terrorism court in Hyderabad . The court also handed down 25-year prison sentences to three other co-accused, Salman Saquib, Sheikh Adil and Farhad Nasim. Pearl had been kidnapped on 23 January 2002. Remains of his body were found in May from a shallow grave in Karachi .

17 July 2002

The Sindh provincial government sealed the offices of two newspapers – Evening Special and Morning Special – for a one-month period and arrested their editors, Aqeel Najmi and Hanif Dawami respectively. Police said the journals published obscene photos and used vulgar language in their reports despite warnings. The restrictions on publications were lifted on 1 August 2002.

19 July 2002

CRS, the public relations company of journalist Hussain Haqqani, was raided in Islamabad and sealed and almost forced to close. A major client of the firm, a public-sector bank, was told to cancel their contract. Backdated income tax notices were revived. “Senior government officials told me I was crossing permissible limits in criticism of government policies. I have written nothing against Pakistan ever …. we just have different ideas of what is best for the country,” Haqqani said. A government spokesman claimed Haqqani had a history of “resorting to defaming the government in the name of freedom of the press which amount to blackmail.”

24 July 2002

Muzaffar Ejaz, editor of Karachi-based Urdu daily Jasarat, was picked up by intelligence officers as he left his office at 11pm. He was interrogated and released five hours later. Ejaz said his abduction was the culmination of a week of harassment following the publication of a controversial story about alleged intelligence involvement in politics that named names.

27 July 2002

Police in Sanghar withdrew the names of 10 journalists including five editors from a list of accused in a slander case after local newspapers named the sons of a local politician of involvement in rapes of two women.

28 July 2002

Islamabad police opened fire on journalists and photographers in an attempt to stop them from taking snaps of a violent encounter between the law enforcement agencies and the villagers of Pind Sangrial and Sri Saral in Sector D-12. Among those either manhandled or whose cameras were snatched and the films destroyed included Tanveer Shahzad of Dawn, Waheed Ahmed Business Recorder, Naveed Akram of The News, Nadeem Ahmed of Geo TV and Abdul Hamid of Jang.

10 August 2002

The Sindh Information Department issued a notice to Karachi-based Urdu newspaper Daily Special for publishing what it termed was “highly objectionable material. ” The department advised the publisher and printer of the newspaper to refrain from publication of immoral material.

21 August 2002

Khalid Hijazi, an employee at army headquarters, filed a complaint with the Rawalpindi police against Shaheen Sehbai, the editor of US-based South Asian Tribune. He is Sehbai's cousin's ex-husband. The complaint alleged that Sehbai carried out an armed robbery in Hijazi's home on 22 February 2001. Sehbai left Pakistan in March 2002 after resigning as editor of The News after allegedly being harassed by the government. Sehbai termed the burglary accusation “a complete fabrication” by the military government of General Pervez Musharraf.

27 August 2003

Aziz Sanghar, a reporter for English daily The Nation, who had filed a story about a protest in an industrial area in Karachi against power outages, was beaten up at the office of the Karachi Electrical Supply Corp managing director. He was visiting the office to seek the official version on the continued power breakdowns in the city.

9 September 2002

Amir Mateen of The News filed a complaint with Islamabad police and wrote to President General Pervez Musharraf that he was constantly being chased and harassed by intelligence agencies and that his telephone was being tapped. “I have been warned that if I do not stop writing against the government I would be harmed physically.”

16 September 2002

A large number of journalists holding valid security passes for the coverage of a defence exhibition inaugurated by President General Pervez Musharraf were refused entry by military officials who refused to acknowledge passes issued by the Special Branch of the Sindh Police bearing photos and other relevant details of the journalists.

30 September 2002

Customs officials in Peshawar assaulted several reporters and photojournalists and damaged their equipment near the Peshawar Press Club after they chanced upon the officials striking a deal with a group of tyre smugglers right on the road and started taking photographs. The journalists included Tanzilur Rehman of Jang, Amjad Malik of Geo TV, Waheedullah Khan of Statesman, Azam Khan of Ausaf and Imran Mehr of Express.

2 October 2002

Several Pakistani journalists who applied for visas to cover elections in New Delhi-administered Kashmir were denied visas by the Indian High Commission in Islamabad .

16 October 2002

Rawalpindi police arrested Mansoor Ahmed, brother-in-law of senior journalist Shaheen Sehbai, in a case of an alleged dacoity committed by Sehbai in February 2001 when he was editor of The News. Ahmed was named by an army employee in the case filed against Sehbai, 18 months after the alleged incident, and after Sehbai launched his outspoken webzine South Asia Tribune from the US . The arrest was made as the court granted bail to another Sehbai relative, 18-year old Imran, after he was kept in jail for over six weeks in the same case. Sehbai left Pakistan in March 2002, 13 months after the alleged incident, during which time no complaint was lodged or no case was registered against him while he was in Pakistan .

20 October 2002

A division bench of the Sindh High Court, Hyderabad circuit, set aside the anti-terrorism court's conviction of journalists Zahoor Ansari and Ayub Khoso in a blasphemy case. The two were editor-in-chief and columnist, respectively, of the Sindhi daily newspaper Alakh. The court sent the case back to the original court for retrial and granted the journalists bail. On 25 November 1999, the anti-terrorism court of Mirpurkhas had sentenced the journalists to 17 years of imprisonment and a fine of Rs 17,000 in a blasphemy case for allegedly publishing and writing a blasphemous column.

20 October 2002

Shahid Soomro, 26, the correspondent in Kandhkot for Hyderabad-based Sindhi daily Kawish, was shot dead resisting a kidnap attempt in front of his house allegedly in reprisal for his reporting on abuses committed during recent general elections held on October 10. Press reports claimed his reporting had angered the recently elected member of the provincial assembly from Kandhkot, Mehboob Bijarani, and that he had received death threats. According to reports, two brothers of the MP, Waheed Bijarani and Muhammad Bijarani, and three accomplices, arrived at Soomro's house at midnight and called him. When Soomro came out, the assailants tried to kidnap him. They shot him with Kalashnikov and TT pistols when he resisted and then escaped in a car. Soomro was taken to hospital in critical condition but died before getting medical aid. Soomro had a reputation for courageous, independent reporting, and his publication, Kawish, is one of the most influential newspapers in Sindh.

23 October 2002

Three journalists of the Japan Broadcasting Corporation (NHK) died in a road accident in the northern mountainous town of Gilgit . Shojun Hata, 55, Kiyoshi Honda, 35, and Takeuchi Taro, 28, were returning to Islamabad after preparing a documentary on Hunza Valley .

1 November 2002

Former journalist Siddiqul Farooq, who is currently the information secretary of former prime minister Nawaz Sharif's Pakistan Muslim League-N, was sued for $50m for allegedly levelling false charges against a firm of paying commission to Federal Communications Minister Javed Ashraf Qazi for contracts. This is the biggest ever suit against a serving or former Pakistani journalist. Farooq was also severely beaten up following his allegations against Qazi who denied involvement.

2 November 2002

The government published a warning in the newspapers, banning the media against using or quoting from reports published by US-based online newspaper South Asia Tribune run by self-exiled Pakistani journalist Shaheen Sehbai. The government threatened journalists with the application of a tough and controversial defamation law that went into effect a few weeks ago. Under this law, journalists convicted of defamation risk up to three months in jail, a fine of Rs 50,000 and an obligation to publish an apology. Sehbai left Pakistan after being threatened by the military government for being critical. Many of his webzine's stories implicate the military authorities in corruption and human rights abuses that have been quoted by the press in Pakistan . While the Ministry of Information warning did not explicitly mention Sehbai or his webzine by name, it made reference to “a self-exiled Pakistani journalist” who is “fabricating reports intended to malign the government of Pakistan and its senior civil servants.”

20 December 2002

Islamabad police beat a team of reporters from the state-owned Pakistan Television after they tried to investigate reports that the police were holding some persons in illegal lock-up. The team led by reporter Anwarul Hassan were beaten up and detained for two hours and their equipment damaged after they discovered 10 persons being held by the Sabzi Mandi police picket.

26 December 2002

Several armed men kidnapped Rashid Qamar, a reporter with Urdu daily Pakistan , from Faisalabad . He was shot six times and left for dead in a deserted area at Jhang Road . He was critically injured.

6 January 2003

Faisalabad Union of Journalists President Javed Akhtar Malik was attacked by a group of unknown assailants. Fortunately, Malik escaped unhurt.

7 January 2003

Over two dozen armed men destroyed the equipment of OK Cable Network in Peshawar , saying that cable TV was “banned” and against Islam. The attack took place close to the Gulbahar police station, but none of the perpetrators were arrested. The cable operators had agreed to resume services to their tens of thousands of customers in Peshawar after talks with government officials.

10 January 2003

The Pakistan government formally protested to New York-based Pakistani journalist Zahid Ghani for “harming Pakistan 's relations with the United States .” Ghani had criticised the US for raiding Pakistani businesses and residences, arresting hundreds and deporting a large number to Pakistan in the post 9/11 period. He had spoken out at a press conference addressed by Islamabad Ambassador to Washington Ashraf Jehangir Qazi, which was covered extensively by the American media.

10 January 2003

Tribal leader Tariq Mateen led several supporters of the Islamist government of North West Frontier Province , in destroying cable television installations in Peshawar , ripping out about 20,000 metres of cable, declaring that cable television was henceforth banned. Some residents fought the attackers during the incident, which followed the militants' imposition of a 10 January deadline for cable operators to cease their broadcasts.

18 January 2003

Interior Minister Faisal Saleh Hayat served a Rs 500 million notice on The Friday Times weekly for allegedly publishing a libellous and contemptuous article against him. The journal said it had published nothing against the complainant that had not been published before by others.

21 January 2003

Author Fazal Wahab was shot dead by four armed men in Mingora in North West Frontier Province for being critical of Islamic clerics after a spate of death threats. Despite requests, the police failed to provide him protection. Wahab caused local anger with his book “Mullah ka Kirdar” (The Mullah's Role), which was banned amid protests. Local religious leaders issued a fatwa or edict declaring him a “non-believer,” thereby inviting death for alleged blasphemy.

21 January 2003

Federal Interior Minister Faisal Saleh Hayat issued a legal notice to Urdu daily Khabrain for publishing a news item about his alleged conviction for a crime in a court of law. He claimed that he had never been convicted. The minister later admitted in the National Assembly that he was on the official Exit Control List, which debars persons from leaving the country without permission who are wanted by the courts in a criminal case.

29 January 2002

Pakistani journalist Ejaz Haider was arrested and detained for 12 hours by United States officials for failing to register with the Immigration and Naturalisation Service. Haider, a senior columnist for Pakistan-based The Friday Times, was a visiting research scholar at the Brookings Institution, a prominent think-tank in Washington . US officials said he had missed a deadline to register at INS but Haider said the State Department and INS had told him he could ignore the requirement to check back within 40 days of registering upon arrival in US.

1 February 2003

Waseem Ansari, a reporter for monthly journal Crimes, was convicted and sentenced to eight years by a court in Islamabad for forcibly photographing two women in the nude and blackmailing them. An assistant sub-inspector and two constables of the police were also found guilty and handed similar punishment in the same case.

1 February 2003

Security personnel for Sehba Musharraf, the wife of President General Pervez Musharraf, roughed up a journalist after he tried to photograph the First Lady at an arts exhibition in Lahore .

22 February 2003

Syed Anwar of Peshawar daily Frontier Post was threatened with “terrible personal consequences” by two henchmen of an Afghan military commander in Nangarhar province after he reported that Hazrat Ali, the province's military chief, was arrested by United States forces for drug-smuggling, kidnapping and supporting members of Al-Qaeda in their escape from the Tora Bora mountains. The two secret service men, one of whom was identified as Abdul Rehman, went to the newspaper's offices in Peshawar to deliver their threat. They also warned that they may ban all Pakistani journalists from Afghanistan 's three eastern provinces. The authorities in Jalalabad have banned the sale of Frontier Post in the Nangarhar province.

10 March 2003

Lahore-based The Independent said it received a threat allegedly made by Punjab Home Secretary Ejaz Shah who reportedly telephoned the weekly's publisher Ilyas Meraj and told him, “Enough is enough. The Punjab government has finally decided against your newspaper for working against the national interest.” The weekly carried Shah's comments in an article including the advice to “roll back” the weekly's operations if he “wants to stay in business and stay safe.” Shah denied making these remarks and told the Council for Protection of Journalists he had not spoken to anyone at The Independent during the week that he had been alleged to have made the call.

16 March 2003

Mahmood Khattak, a Peshawar-based correspondent for Dawn newspaper was manhandled by the police in the Karak Bazaar when he was on his way to Tank from Peshawar on a car and asked to show his papers. Superintendent Police Karak Mohammad Ayub insisted on arresting him saying the journalist resembled a car-lifter by face. The matter was settled when another policeman verified Khattak's credentials.

24 March 2003

Akhtar Baloch, a journalist and a human rights activist based in Hyderabad was picked up by some intelligence sleuths and detained for three days. He later said he was interrogated about his rights activities and warned to restrict them.

1 April 2003

Ashfaq Ali, a senior sub-editor of English-language The News was severely beaten up by the police in Karachi when his motorcycle was brushed by a police van.

3 April 2003

Hayatullah Khan, the correspondent for the Urdu-language daily Ausaf in Mir Ali town of North Waziristan Agency bordering Afghanistan , and his family were reportedly harassed by military officials after he reported about the alleged misuse of army vehicles in the area. His brothers and daughter were expelled from the army-run school in the area.

4 April 2003

The house of Awardeen Mehsood, a correspondent for Urdu-language daily Khabrain and news agency NNI, in Laddah town of South Waziristan Agency bordering Afghanistan was attacked with a bomb. The explosion damaged the door of his home. No one claimed responsibility but Mehmood suspected a link with his reports on the activities of the Youth Movement, which is pressing for a change in the status of the Tribal Areas. In 2002, Mehsood, a member of the Tribal Union of Journalists, was sentenced to pay a heavy fine of Rs 35,000 (US$5,400) for allegedly libelling the region's civilian administration.

12 April 2003

Paramilitary Sutlej Rangers forcibly denied entry to a large number of reporters at a reception area on the border with India and prevented them covering the arrival of a group of Sikh pilgrims from India . This was despite the fact that all journalists were carrying valid invitations from the provincial government's Press Information Department to cover the event.

18 April 2003

Sami Paracha, the Kohat-based district correspondent for the Dawn newspaper was abducted and assaulted by a criminal gang for reporting lavish facilities being provided in hospital to a certain Pir Habib Shah, who had been arrested earlier and was undergoing medical treatment. Shah's associates abducted Paracha and took him to the hospital where he was beaten up and locked in a bathroom. Paracha had his mobile telephone and was able to summon the town's police chief, who came and rescued him.

Chapter 3

Access to Official Information – Assured, Not Sure

On 26 October 2002 the military government of President General Pervez Musharraf promulgated a dinosaur of a 2,292-word law with the professed objective of “ensuring transparency of governance by providing access to official information.”

The altruism is suspect because the birth of “Freedom of Information Ordinance 2002” was in violation of the agreement on the subject between the government and the stakeholders and came during a grey period between a general election and a new government. To add a dash of farce to this haste, it was promulgated close to midnight!

The military government's insistence that the law is beneficial holds little conviction if the stakeholders say it is not, which the All Pakistan Newspapers Society, Council of Pakistan Newspaper Editors and All Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists have been continuously been doing since its promulgation. And for good reason.

Out of Bounds

For a law that purports to ensure access to official records, it is astonishing the lengths it goes to outline which kinds of information are out of bounds for the public: home, foreign and defence policies. And, for good measure, anything declared classified by a bureaucrat.

To be sure there is no precise yardstick elaborated of what constitutes classification save for information whose disclosure “would be harmful to law enforcement” (home policies), “could cause grave and significant damage to the interests of Pakistan in the conduct of international relations” (foreign policies) and “any record related to or ancillary to national security” (defence policies).

With the right of interpretation of what constitutes “national security”, “national interest” or “harmful effects [of disclosure]” resting with the government alone, the “Freedom of Information Ordinance 2002” actually institutionalises restriction to the essential kinds of information in a country where secrecy, not openness is the state staple.

While it would be unrealistic to expect the government to disclose highly sensitive defence and security matters, it is scandalous to arm bureaucrats with the sweeping power to declare any or all kinds of important information that they think will cause damage to national interests as classified, as they have indeed been empowered under the law.

Damning Portions

The most damning parts of the law are the ones dealing with what journalists or their employing media can look forward to if they are found wanting on respecting the prohibitions of the law and what government officials will have to face if found obstructing the genuine demands of the media.

As for the “guilty” government officials, they can look forward to enjoying the misery of journalists waiting for even information promised to them by the law. The “penalty” for “convicted” officials is a letter from the ombudsman directing them to furnish the requested information!

No penalties, no fines, no remorse required from government officials who deliberately (or plain inefficiently) deny or delay information! All this after one fulfils a cumbersome process of seeking, requesting and waiting for the information and then taking the matter to the ombudsman, if denied the information, and trying to win a favourable verdict.

And what of the pitfalls awaiting a journalist or citizen who approaches the ombudsman for justice, complaining that he has been unfairly denied the requested information, and is found not deserving the requested information? A fine of up to Rs 10,000 or a jail term of up to two years, or both.

This is outrageous considering that such a journalist or citizen will not have recourse to an appeal against the government or its officials for having been convicted.

For just such situations, the law is extra kind to government officials who have been formally provided indemnity against any suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings “for anything done [read: denying even promised information] in good faith or intended to be done in pursuance of this ordinance.”

Accessing Restrictions

If these draconian measures, shamelessly imbalanced for being skewed against journalists and in favour of the government, are not enough to deter potential seekers of official information, here's what will: the law provides powers to the government to increase the fees for requested information and institute changes [read: complicate the process further] in the official form, which must be filled and furnished in order to request official information.

While the government argues this law will help provide access to all that the people want to know about the doings of the government, the press says it actually serves a contrary purpose by not according them enough free access to official documents that are subject to restrictive classification, which makes them inaccessible and impedes investigative journalism.

A particular bone of contention is the restriction that the law imposes on reporting about notings on files and recommendations of government departments, which in effect means preventing a public debate before finalisation of recommendations with a bearing on the citizens.

This provision will effectively discourage an open debate on laws and rules that will impact the people, thereby stifling the universal practice of active public discourse – a surefire way to upholding the citizens' interests, the primary duty of any government.

The law promises access to “finalised or recorded policies and contracts.” But this was already possible before the law! What this law does is formally restrict access to large types of official information, access to which was previously technically allowed since it was not banned!

Under this law a wide variety of official records will still not be accessible, which virtually nullifies its very purpose because anything and everything can be classified as ‘sensitive' and hidden away. In a country where land allotments, property sales and contracts awarded by the government have been proven sources of corruption, access of relevant records to the citizens is indispensable if the demands of good governance are to be met.

Making records and documents available to the press for public scrutiny is sure to act as a valuable check on politicians and bureaucrats who, especially in a country like Pakistan , have a track record of disregarding rules to favour individuals and groups for a consideration.

Official contracts with foreign states and firms in military and civilian sectors have also been a major source of corruption. Many fair names, among them prime ministers, ministers and armed forces chiefs, have found themselves smeared on this count.

It is ironical that the law seeks to render illegal for purposes of publication, all file notes, minutes, summaries and interim orders by government officials, including ministers because these are the kinds of information that caused military regimes to issue volumes of white papers, and after accountability, to subsequently prosecute as many as three civilian prime ministers for corruption and in one case even murder!

In Pakistan , experience tells us that once laws are announced or rules enforced, no amount of disapproval will usually overturn them. This is why the press contends that this law will ensure that any public discourse will only be passive because of denial to information that is in public interest.

Significantly, the new law also restricts access to a debate on defence matters without spelling out a definition of what constitutes “national interests” – thereby empowering the government to brand any document as classified and therefore off-limits to a public debate. This open-ended proviso practically defeats the purpose of the law whose aim should be to provide unfettered access to information rather than holding back a lot of it from public scrutiny.

It is unacceptable by any standards that citizens must fund one-third of the country's budget for defence matters but have no right to know how much is being spent on what and where. It does not suffice to say that the money is being spent for the people's own defence!

The law in effect transforms Article 19 of Pakistan's constitution upholding the freedom of press into an ordinance that excludes from publication any transaction concerning the military, and the conduct of foreign policy from fair comment by prohibiting the reproduction of any documents on these matters.

Priority Access

One major flaw in the law is that to ensure access to official records, access first to public servants be assured. No such mechanism has been spelt out whereas the major gripe of the press is that bureaucrats have an inherent tendency to shy away from giving anything away.

Despite its glaring defects, the law cannot be dismissed outright. It does concede ground by moving away from the state's obsessive preoccupation with keeping matters secret. But the freedoms it accords are not enough. This is an age of enlightened citizenry, which needs to know how their fates are governed by the state.

The underlying reality running the gamut of the law is not letting citizens have the choice and right to have whatever kind of information they want but to choose for them what kind and how much information they can have. This is not a formula for transparency. This is a recipe for half-truths.

This law is unacceptable for it not only defangs the fourth estate, the last recourse of justice for an aggrieved citizen, it also keeps the citizens in the dark – the law's genesis being its midnight promulgation – thereby ensuring the people's right to know is in name only.

The government may insist the law promises freedom of information but in Pakistan the freedom to seek is not the same as the freedom to get. To be sure, the Freedom of Information Ordinance 2002 gives citizens the right to seek, but not the right to be certain to get information that affects their lives.

The law needs to be fashioned to reflect new realities and requirements. Currently it translates into a stifling restriction on the citizens' basic right to make informed decisions on all subjects and issues. The objections of the press must be taken into account and the law revised in consultation with the country's press bodies.

Chapter 4

New Censorship for a New Media Age in Pakistan

In what amounts to new censorship modes for a new media age in Pakistan , the military government of President General Pervez Musharraf in October 2002 promulgated the Press Council Ordinance 2002, which provides for a Press Council for Pakistan professedly aimed at improving professional standards of all journalists and to ensure press freedoms in the country.

The Council allows for a mechanism to register complaints by the public about violations of an Ethical Code of Practice (please see separate chapter on this in this report), which is also a part of this law, by journalists and others.

The law states that the Code, which deal with such weighty issues as morality, plagiarism, fairness, accuracy, privacy, sensationalism, confidentiality and privilege, will allow journalists to operate “in accordance with the canons of decency, principles of professional conduct and precepts of freedom and responsibility, to serve the public interest by ensuring an unobstructed flow of news and views to the people envisaging that honesty, accuracy, objectivity and fairness shall be the guidelines for the press while serving the public interest.”

The Council will be an independent corporate entity, with its own staff, secretariat and budget and will be financed through an annual governmental grant-in-aid as well as other grants and donations and such fees as it may levy from registered newspapers and news agencies.

Functions of the Council

It is clear from some of the following list of functions of the Council that it will have a sweeping domain to lord over, from dealing with Code violations by the press to defending the interests of the press:

Preserve press freedoms by maintaining high professional and ethical standards of newspapers and news agencies; Helping newspapers and news agencies to maintain their independence; Revise, update, enforce and implement the Code for newspapers, news agencies, editors, journalists and publishers; Receive complaints about violations of Code by newspapers, news agencies, editors and journalists and appoint inquiry commissions to decide complaints; Receive complaints by newspaper or journalists against government officials or organisations including political parties for hindering functioning of free press; Undertake research relating to newspapers, including foreign newspapers, their circulation and impact, etc.

Composition of the Council

The Council will comprise 19 members, to be nominated as follows: a chairperson by the president (from among retired Supreme Court judges or persons qualified to be a judge), 3 by All Pakistan Newspapers Society, 3 by Council of Pakistan Newspaper Editors, 3 by working journalists associations, 1 by Pakistan Bar Council, one ‘eminent educationist' each from the four provinces by the governor, 1 by leader of the house in National Assembly, 1 by leader of the opposition, 1 by “any renowned human rights organisation having not less than 10 years' standing” and 1 by National Commission on the Status of Women in Pakistan.

The promulgation of this law instituting the Council and the Code comes as a surprise as only a few democratic countries have such statutory allowances to regulate the print media. The Council effectively amounts to policing the Pakistani media through officially appointed bodies and breach the country's constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression.

Self-regulation, the least restrictive form of media regulation, is ideally suited to Pakistan as it promotes a positive and promotional approach to ethics and is thereby effective. In Pakistan a voluntary Code of Ethics was adopted in 1972 by the General Assembly of the Committee of the Press and hence there was no reason a new code was required.

Troubling Ethics

According to ARTICLE 19, the international organisation dedicate to promotion of freedom of expression, why the new Code of Ethics that the new Pakistani law stipulates is troubling is because it is neither precise nor ambiguous and therefore not compatible with the right to freedom of expression. Several of its provisions are excessively vague and open to abuse whereas others contain moral obligations that cannot be enforced by law.

For example, several provisions require the press to ‘strive' to achieve certain standards, such as to disseminate accurate information. While this is an important aspiration for all media, it cannot be enforced by law: the requirement that the press should ‘strive' is incapable of sufficiently precise interpretation. This is most apparent in Section 1 of the Code, which requires the press to ‘strive to uphold standards of morality'.

The concept of ‘morality' in itself is vague and open to different interpretations; coupled with the requirement that the press should ‘strive to uphold' it the provision becomes incapable of precise interpretation and is open to abuse on political or other grounds.

Other provisions are similarly vaguely worded, requiring the press to ‘avoid' biased reporting or sensationalism or violence, for example, or to rectify ‘harmful inaccuracies'. The prohibition on ‘biased reporting' in itself is also problematic to the extent that it may be interpreted as banning reporting that is critical of the government.

Open to Abuse

Other provisions contain restrictions that are, according to ARTICLE 19, in themselves illegitimate. For example, Section 9 states: “The press shall avoid printing any material which may bring into contempt Pakistan or its people”. This is not an appropriate restriction on media reporting, even of an ethical nature, and is open to abuse on political grounds. As such, it will have a chilling effect on legitimate and even important public debate in Pakistan , for example concerning the position of the government.

Section 4 is also illegitimate, posing privacy as an absolute right by stating that the press “shall do nothing which tantamounts to an intrusion into private, family life and home”. This would restrict investigative reporting, for example where a reporter is using undercover techniques to research charges of corruption. In other countries, restrictions on freedom of expression to protect privacy are subject to a public interest override.

Section 6 provides yet another example, requiring the media only to disseminate information that is “true and accurate.” This is far too stark a prohibition to be included in a legally binding code. Journalists, like everyone else, are fallible and some scope must be left for honest mistakes. For this reason, other countries posit as accuracy as a goal to be attained in voluntary codes.

It is an established fact that any body with regulatory powers over the media must be independent and protected against government or economic interference. Although the Press Council Ordinance does imply the Council is to be independent of the government – indeed, one of its stated functions is to act as a ‘shield to freedom of the press' in complaints against government bodies – it fails adequately to guarantee the independence of the Council or of its members.

This law, ARTICLE 19 points out, does not contain a specific guarantee that Council members should be free to carry out their work without economic or political interference. In many countries legislation establishing broadcast regulators, which similarly need to be protected against interference, often has such a specific guarantee.

Control from the Top

Furthermore, the independence of the Council is marred by the fact that the president will appoint the chairperson of the Council while provincial governors will appoint another four members. With the quorum set at 9 members, government-appointed members can dominate proceedings, including by censuring newspapers without the approval of independent members. That this is problematic is self-evident, particularly in cases where a complaint is brought against a newspaper because it has published reports that are critical of the government, or in cases brought by newspapers against the government.

Then the penalty provisions of the law are also problematical. Section 15 says: “Whoever publishes or circulates any matter in contravention of the Code or directions of the Council may … recommend to the competent authority to suspend the publication.”

This extremely severe sanction is not provided for elsewhere in the Ordinance and should be deleted. ARTICLE 19 considers that suspension is never a legitimate sanction for the print media but, in any case, it is clearly inappropriate for breach of an ethical code.

Furthermore, this provision allows for both the complaints mechanism and the ex officio censuring mechanism provided by Section 19 to be bypassed completely, so that the due process guarantees these procedures provide can be ignored. Only courts should impose serious sanctions, after a full hearing on the merits.

Chapter 5

Press and Parliament in Pakistan : Ties That Bind

President General Pervez Musharraf promulgated four press-related ordinances in the dying days of his military regime in October 2002. Their nature realised the fears of the journalistic community that they would exert a significant chilling effect on freedom of expression in Pakistan .

Three of the four – the Press Council Ordinance, Registration Ordinance and Defamation Ordinance – not only restrict freedom of expression also but undermined the process of democratic transition by not leaving them to the new parliament to take care of.

Nothing about them justified the urgent procedure – ordinances – invoked by the president. Any new laws or change in existing laws, if deemed necessary, should have been left to the new parliament, which came in place after the October 10, 2002 elections.

This exercise was a classical example of how media laws in Pakistan have always been drafted and enacted, oriented towards serving the interests of the Establishment and not empowering the citizens – promulgated as ordinances, mostly by unelected regimes.

In the 55-year history of Pakistan only one press-related law was ever put before a parliament, debated, drafted, approved and enacted. And how good that was!

The Newspapers Services Conditions Act 1973 was passed by parliament and allowed constitution of the Wage Board. So what little concession Pakistan 's working journalists have managed to acquire have been courtesy elected representatives, not slippery bureaucrats in the service of shady regimes. A proof if there was any that a parliament is the best place to author representative laws.

To sour the mood here consider this bizarre fact: Hafeez Pirzada, the man who as law minister fathered this 1973 Act, is being paid Rs6.5m by the All Pakistan Newspapers Society and the Council of Pakistan Newspaper Editors, which do not represent the interests of working journalists of the country but of media owners, to oppose this law in court as draconian nowadays!

Controlled Freedoms

Musharraf's Press Council Ordinance establishes a Press Council largely controlled by government appointees – the chairman, for example, is appointed by the president – with responsibility for enforcing an Ethical Code of Practice, binding on all journalists.

The Code contains a number of extremely vague obligations, such as to “strive to uphold standards of morality,” as well as illegitimate obligations, such as to avoid printing material which may bring the country or its people into contempt.

The Registration Ordinance requires all publishers, printers and owners of newspapers and news agencies in Pakistan to be centrally registered, no matter how small their circulation. Of course, registration may be refused if the applicant has been convicted of “a criminal offence” or, in the case of printers, of a crime involving “moral turpitude.”

The Defamation Ordinance provides for criminal sanctions for defamation, including a minimum level of compensatory damages of Rs 50,000 – one third of the annual per capita GDP – and up to three-month imprisonment. This law fails to address some serious problems with defamation, preserving existing criminal defamation provisions and the power of public bodies to sue in defamation.

These three ordinances in particular are a thinly guised attempt at controlling the media because the enforcement mechanisms in the Press Council Ordinance and the Registration Ordinance are wide open to political abuse and imprisonment for defamation is glaringly contrary to international law. Together, they are likely to result in significant self-censorship by the country's journalists.

The fourth law, the Freedom of Information Ordinance, is a welcome step by way of its nature itself but has its flaws. For instance it fails to guarantee the right of citizens to access information held by government offices in line with standards designed to promote transparent, accountable government.

This ordinance not only defines public records narrowly but also provides for an extensive regime of exclusions and exemptions, which include all file notings, all previously classified documents and any document relating to defence. Large amounts of information are not subject to disclosure, largely undermining the public's right to know.

Instead of applying to all records held by public bodies, the government renders the law irrelevant by apportioning to itself the power to exclude even documents which are otherwise allowed if to do so would serve the “public interest.”

Other problems with this law are its failure to require public bodies to preserve records adequately and the limited positive obligation to publish key information. While this law offered an opportunity to provide for an effective guarantee of the right to information, the authorities instead opted for allowances that are excessively narrow in scope and full of exceptions.

The Last Frontier

The approach of Pakistani authorities to press laws is a sorry one, unashamedly designed to fashion new ways to impose restrictions rather than broadening freedoms. In an age of media abundance and an information overload, this is no longer acceptable.

When politics is belittled, parliament hijacked and judiciary manipulated, press is the last frontier that can make a difference between simple truths and complex lies. If the media is not free, in spirit and in essence, then the right to communicate is dealt a severe blow.

By bringing in laws such as the ones enacted in the dying days of the recent-most military regime in Pakistan, the authorities sought to paint the right to communicate as a new and independent right whereas it ought to be firmly established within the framework of existing rights, most importantly the right to freedom of expression.

In a democratic Pakistan , a free press is not possible under laws enacted by military regimes. All laws that relate to the media, including print and electronic, must be put before the parliament after consulting all stakeholders, especially working journalists, without whom the media cannot exist and without whom Pakistan would be a lost cause.

The interests of the people's representatives and the press are intertwined. The parliament guarantees that the people cannot be silenced and the media guarantees that the parliament cannot be muted. A free press is the guarantor of a free parliament.

The parliament and press are natural allies. Let this be acknowledged by way of the country's press laws being changed to what they should be in universal terms, on the floor of the House, not in the dank corridors of the Establishment.

It's not only the freedom of the press at stake in Pakistan but the survival of democracy too.

Chapter 6

Defamation and the Burden of Proof in Pakistan

One of the four press laws promulgated by the military government of President General Pervez Musharraf on October 2002 – the Defamation Ordinance 2002 – provides for prosecution of journalists accused of defamation and slander.

The law provides that journalists in Pakistan will be prosecuted for libel and slander in a court of law for defamation and face a minimum fine of Rs 50,000 if convicted of publishing defamatory material. In case of default in the payment of compensation, they will have to serve three-month prison terms.

The law envisages that “defamation will be actionable as a civil wrong both in the form of libel and slander,” and is based on the principle that “the reputation of a member of society, the esteem in which he or she is held by it, the credit and trust he or she reposes in its intelligence, honour and integrity are valuable assets of a citizen and these must be safeguarded.”

In the event of defamation, the aggrieved person may proceed against the accused journalist by issuing a legal notice and thereafter filing the case in the court of district judge. In case defamation is proved, the convicted journalist will be directed to tender an apology and publish the same in the same manner and in the same prominence as the defamatory statement was made.

This law, along with the other new press laws, have been vehemently rejected as “black laws” by press bodies, deeming them to have breached agreements they had reached with the government. In July 2002 the government undertook in an agreement with APNS and CPNE to amend the pending ordinance and limit fines for defamation to a maximum of Rs 50,000. However, the law finally adopted stipulates that penalties for defamation start at Rs 50,000 plus prison sentences.

Furthermore, topics under the new law were taken from an old press code that bans any vilification of “friendly nations” or infringement of “decency” – vague terms that give the authorities too much latitude and lend themselves to arbitrary implementation.

One reason is that the new law places the burden, onus, and responsibility of any news considered defamatory, upon the reporter this time and not just upon the editor, publisher or printer. Reporters in Pakistan will now have to take it upon themselves the responsibility and expense of court litigation and the possibility of being the only ones being jailed for any news considered defamatory that is published in their papers.

Surviving on Instinct

The law, contrary to its stated objectives, is a recipe to hamper the press from discharging its classic role. Apart from the legal minefield it plants on the path of responsible journalism, it provides no guidelines how it will lend itself to application. An answer will only be available when a court gives its decision in a case, but till then the press will have to follow its survival instinct to keep out of harm's way.

The press will even find it difficult to publish the statements of government leaders when they criticise their detractors as much of what they say could easily fall under the scope of the law. Should the reporters then ignore the utterances entirely or sift through them for legally correct portions, which might defeat the very purpose of the statements?

For example how will a reporter deal, under this law, President Musharraf's initial statement that the American FBI was not operative in Pakistan and that there was no attack on his life in mid-2002 in Karachi . The US [Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, specifically], however, said that not only FBI was fairly active in Pakistan but that there had been an attempt on the life of Musharraf. This follows that obviously one of these gentlemen lied. How can the reporter escape the law's grip by even suggesting as much?

The law is based on the premise that reporters will tend to misreport. Obviously some are more equal than others. Musharraf's communications minister on live television in 2002 accused all “left wing journalists” of “working for India ” who can be “bought for two bottles of liquor”! If this isn't generalised defamation of the highest order, what is?

If proof is the burden of this law then the government should be equally ready to offer itself for examination as the unproved corruption cases brought against former prime ministers Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif can, under these very laws, all be converted into libel and the prosecutors sent to jail and fined heavily.

Dividing Public From Private

It remains to be seen how a Pakistani court will judge between the professional hazard of sincere investigation gone partially wrong and an intended smear campaign that serves someone's purpose. If world standards are to be applied in Pakistan then it will help to distinguish between public figures and private persons while deciding defamation.

As the Lahore-based Daily Times newspaper aptly put it, “the new defamation law threatens to choke off the lowly citizen's right to complain about the privileged man's dominance simply because he has no ‘solid' proof.”

One of many reasons this law should not exist is because Section 499 of the Pakistan Penal Code already deals with defamation. The new law is nothing but slapping a legal straitjacket on the press. The government will do well to take up its own offer to amend the law in consultation with press bodies. If the government can bring a law without fully evaluating its consequences, and not do its homework, how can it sit in judgement over the media?

Chapter 7

Growing Media Abundance in Pakistan : Challenges and Opportunities

If there is one thing Pakistanis couldn't complain about in the year under review, it was lack of news, views and interviews. 2002 will be remembered in the country as the landmark year of emerging media abundance, what with all manner of private television and cable channels and alternative media flooding people with more information than they have been trained to handle under tight state controls.

The emerging media abundance in Pakistan coincided with restoration of civilian rule, and elections – complete with politicians, policymakers and pundits – came into people's bedrooms like never before. Should the media scene in the country keep hotting up and become sustainable, they will wield enormous influence on people's opinions and choices when the next elections are around.

That media abundance in Pakistan is here to stay is borne out by the fact the general elections, the US-Iraq war, the Indo-Pak tensions and Pakistan 's myriad internal contradictions and conflicts – political, sectarian and nationalist – is under the scrutiny of the ballooning media realm.

But is Pakistani media simultaneously developing its capacity of objectivity, fairness and impartiality? How do we promote the values of peace in an age of media abundance? That will be the main challenge facing the local media in the months and years ahead.

The challenges posed by media abundance and the need to promote peace and liberal values in a country riven by conflicts such as Pakistan can be reconciled by enhancing awareness of issues and reflecting them in their relevant context and by stimulating the civil society in orienting itself to seize the initiative, according to Zafarullah Khan , the project coordinator of Freidrich Nauman Stiftung.

To be able to arrive at this desirable possibility, the goal of an informed citizenry is requisite, which is not possible if access to information is not near universal, argues Salman Humayun of the Islamabad-based Consumer Rights Commission of Pakistan.

The Comfort of Non-Issues

While timely information is the best bet in pre-empting corruption and circumventing conflicts, the Pakistani media is more comfortable with non-issues – reflected in the prioritisation of news where public-interest reportage is relegated behind peripheral political discourse.

Towards its fag end in October 2002, the military regime of General Pervez Musharraf promulgated four media-related laws. One of these is the Access to Information Law. Any minor gains this law doles out is neutralised by the Defamation Law – a case of taking away with one hand what is given by the other. Without reconciling these laws – one assuring disclosure and the other guaranteeing privacy – the citizenry in general and media in particular cannot exercise their full right to access information in time to pre-empt the ill consequences of ignorance.

C R Shamsi, the senior vice president of the Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists, emphasises that the media will remain powerless unless working journalists – who according to the text of the new media laws will bear the brunt of their perceived violations – ensure input in revisions of the law, true media freedom will be a mirage rather a reality.

In Through the Out Door

Why all laws on the media in Pakistan in the last 55 years are oriented towards serving the interests of the Establishment and not empowering the citizens is evident by the fact that all (save for one) have been promulgated as ordinances – mostly unelected regimes – and have never been placed before the parliament! A case of “in” through the “out” door, as the title of an album by Led Zeppelin goes.

According to M Ziauddin, the resident editor of Dawn, in the long struggle for media freedoms in Pakistan , the governments have been the winners and working journalists the losers as the laws ensure perpetuation of the monopoly of a limited number of barons who retain cosy relationships with the authorities. Both print and e-media laws are designed to discourage new entrants to the field so as to limit the unsettling influence of a competitive media and to ensure compliance on state terms.

Mujahid Barelvi of Indus News says the onset of private TV channels have ended the monopoly of the monolithic PTV and triggered a change in broadcast standards set up by bureaucrats. One major change effected by the onslaught of private channels is that fear no longer hushes up the media and the exercise of self-censorship is slowly dying.

According to popular columnist and writer Munnoo Bhai, the private channels are not the undoing of PTV because by the time the former arrived on the scene, the state-owned channel had “passed away” because of its falling standards. Improvement, however, is discernible, thanks to competition.

Controlled Liberalisation

Despite the movement to liberalise the broadcast media, the state still wants to retain total control. An apt example of this is a private radio in Mithi, which has been granted a license to operate. The Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority recently cancelled the radio's license for airing Hindu prayers ignoring the fact that it is situated in a Hindu-majority area and thus catering to its listenership. The license was restored after promises by its operators not to broadcast “bhajjans” in future.

Film critic Irfan Ahmed Urfi says that true to the adage that art reflects life, the glorification of jihad and militarism in society in recent years has crept into not only television but also cinema in Pakistan . Creativity has been replaced with repulsive violence.

The film “International Guerrillas” in 1990 introduced the jihadi theme in Pakistani cinema directly for the first time. Its subject was Salman Rushdie and the plot revolved around a bunch of “Muslim” Pakistanis – the volunteer guerrillas in the title! – who storm a far-off facility where Rushdie is being kept safe. After endless violence, Rushdie dies by divine intervention!

Film critic Aijaz Gul agrees the use of distorted religious themes in Pakistani cinema have reached alarming proportions. The industry's conditions have also deteriorated. Antiquated equipment is one reason production will never improve. And thanks to Syed Noor, the director and producer, no film is now under 3 hours, which means even before one show ends in cinemas, the next show begins, hence the pathetic state of cinema halls.

According to Gul, one major inspiration for violence in Pakistani cinema and television is India , where Bollywood has invested much in bravura patriotism and militant violence, preferably with Pakistan and Kashmir in the backdrop of their films.

Renowned actors, producers and directors Rahat Kazmi and Sahira Kazmi demand an open and freer tele-media while lamenting classicist inefficiency in state-controlled media. For obvious reasons, military governments are especially bad for TV, whether a “conservative” general like Ziaul Haq rules the country or a “liberal” like Pervez Musharraf does. Without artistic freedoms, there cannot develop open societies. Curbed freedoms are a recipe for conflicts.

The Kazmis point out that cinema is the only medium in Pakistan that is totally independent from state controls of all kinds – from content to expression – and yet has failed to exploit this to encourage creativity. Even a fraction of this freedom allowed to television, they argue, would revolutionise people's opinions and lives.

Zafarullah Khan of FNSt points out an interesting aspect of media abundance: despite dominance of political coverage in the media, public trust in politics is at an all time low in Pakistan . Rare genuine interest is rekindled in politics when programmes like Geo channel's “Hum Umeed Say Hain” puts the politicians on the mat or “Aik Din Siyatsatdaan Kay Sath,” where they can, for example, see the otherwise stately and aloof politician Mustafa Khar standing upside down practicing yoga, the myth shorn off.

Not Deep Enough

Imtiaz Gul of The Friday Times weekly feels that one reason why political coverage is not evoking interest in Pakistan, especially in the print media, is because of a lack of investigative reporting – something that tells them the inside stories – which is not possible because of the hazards associated with such an undertaking.

How do you report on politics in a country where more-of-the-same is the staple national diet, where the status quo rules? Little wonder status quo is all that one gets in newspapers. If a nation and its press fall together it is because The Fall is the subject. To compound matters, private TV channels in Pakistan are taking the pressure off newspaper reporters because the former have more immediate deadlines. TV current affairs programmes are taking the edge off print reporters.

Dr Tariq Rehman, a linguist and a professor at the Quaid-e-Azam University in Islamabad feels there is a difference between what media portrays and what it actually achieves. For instance, he says, it managed to effectively generate sympathy for the 3,000 killed in the World Trade Centre but not for the 3,000 killed in Afghanistan . Ditto for Iraq . At play here is the media's ability to conjure a reality, when it wants to and how it wants to.

Which is how the Urdu media in Pakistan has manifested itself in a pro-status quo role and promoted the Establishment by projecting that it is inevitable and indispensable for the country. Since the elite are soft on elite and harsh on the masses, the English press in Pakistan is tolerated its relative freedom to criticise the Establishment.

But while the media as a whole can fabricate false realities, some individual journalists can single-handedly keep unveiling actual realities falsified by the Establishment (with the help of the mainstream media), and thus make a difference. Individual journalists are the saving grace of mass media.

To promote the values of peace in an age of media abundance, Dr Rehman floats the workable and desirable idea of the associations of journalists of the country drawing up a list of contentious words and phrases, especially those whose unfair employment helps perpetuate conflict stereotypes and agree not to use them improperly – e.g., secularism. This “dirty word” in Pakistan is widely perceived to mean “Godless” whereas secularism actually guarantees religious freedom.

Words mean different things to different people, as the growing media abundance in Pakistan aptly proves. As Lewis Carroll has one of his “Through the Looking Glass” characters comment, “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean.”

Chapter 8

Growing Electronic Media in Pakistan and Its Impact on Democracy

Pakistan was witness to an interesting paradox in October 2002: the dullest general elections in the country's history took place at a time that was possibly the liveliest period in its history terms of access to alternative sources of information and growing media abundance.

In what emerged as a veritable flood of electronic media, television channels through satellite and cable abounded and Pakistan 's otherwise information starved people were, for a change, spoilt for choice. For the first elections in Pakistan 's history, the citizens no longer had only the state-owned Pakistan Television (PTV) to give them round-the-clock election news. Many private Pakistani television channels jumped into the fray all were beamed from abroad because the government did not allow terrestrial beaming to them. These included Geo, ARY and Indus TV.

Literally dozens of current affairs programmes are now beaming into millions of homes across the country, giving the people a genuine choice in what they want. And make no mistake about it – what they wanted in October was election-related news, views and interviews. And they got it! As expected, the intensity of interest has persisted well into the new year, 2003, with the US-led war against Iraq getting top billing.

There were several reasons why electronic media, especially television and cable channels proved a hit come elections with the average Pakistani. It is not difficult to discern why business activity wore thin in the days preceding, during and after the polls, as citizens sat riveted before their idiot boxes trying to figure out what was happening even though the general outcome – the pro-military Pakistan Muslim League-Q party will win – proved true.

With the country's biggest traditional draws at the hustings – Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif – out of the race and dozens of other familiar faces disqualified for a host of pedantic reasons, new faces abounded, making the elections a confusing affair.

Replacing Newspapers

This in turn made the hitherto traditional main source of election-time information – newspapers – a dull alternative for they stood robbed of colour and pomp that came from the familiar political cast of the past decade. Missing from the newspapers was also the mutual mudslinging and bilateral catcalls that make elections in Pakistan exciting. Seat adjustments between foes-turned-friends made matters dourer this time round.

The closest these elections came to sparking public excitement was when the Chaudhries of Gujrat – Shujaat Hussain is now president of the ruling PML-Q while Pervaiz Elahi is chief minister of Punjab province – and sportsman-turned-philanthropist-turned-politician Imran Khan provided a measure of how interesting things could be. The pulses raced but only a little.

Devoid of these familiar ingredients the newspapers could only report tired statements from even new mouths, proving the adage that the more things change the more they stay the same in Pakistan. It was little wonder then that a slew of new television channels – even the otherwise staid PTV and its sister channels for that matter – jumped in the fray to attract viewership, which has grown by literally leaps and bounds in Pakistan.

Television as Primary Source

The people now had a choice to not just to read about the politicians they love or loathe but also see them speak, usually live, and judge them more accurately than through any other way by sizing up their reflexes and oratory skills in colour.

The real revolution has come through Urdu-language television channels based outside Pakistan such as ARY, Indus and Uni Plus, and also Geo, which has seen its popularity shoot up by leaps and bounds, that have forever changed the way politicians in Pakistan can be held the most decent way accountable – blunt and uncomfortable questions on live TV. Such is the measure of the success of the private Pakistani television channels that even the state-owned PTV has been forced to brush up its presentations and allow for dissenting views to appear both during the elections and the Iraq war.

The television channels have been able to do what has never happened before in Pakistan when PTV was the master of all airwaves: politicians and party leaders from opposition ends of the spectrum have been sharing the same limelight and tested to the limit being asked to justify or joust their past rivalries or revelries.

The parties were questioned ruthlessly about their paradoxes and peculiarities and policies and pains. For the first time in Pakistan 's history, past rulers were forced to answer for their deeds and misdeeds in front of millions – live! Such is the power of the free media.

The politicians were revealed in all their shades of courage and cowardice by being forced to state their stances on contentious issues on the spot. An astonished public saw nationalists and federalists and moderates and mullahs struggle to make sense in the knowledge that their reputations were being made and unmade even as they spoke.

Growing Media Choices

The astonishing openness of the electronic media, seen in all its pacy glory, is apparently set to stay in Pakistan . No longer probably can governments keep stuffing the entire Khabarnama – prime time news on state-owned television – with inanities and banalities. The opposition now has access to the bevy of private Pakistani channels other than PTV to air their grievance on any issue on the same day, usually even before the government stance makes it to the Khabarnama at 9pm.

Pakistani governments will not be able to stop this openness from expanding into virtually all corners of the state. The avalanche of community, district, provincial and national level private radio channels and similar placed television channels is set to totally transform how Pakistanis get their information.

The statistics confirm this picture. In a country of 142 million, one per 66 have televisions and one per 13 have radios while just 16 per 1,000 people read newspapers. And with a literacy rate barely 40 per cent and an urban-rural ratio of 31.5 per cent to 68.5 per cent, it is clear that more than print media it is the electronic media that has the greater penetration and will be the one to sway the public opinion in Pakistan for a long time to come.

However, to say that the newfound electronic media openness in Pakistan will be a smooth ride is far from assured. During elections, most political parties did not show any enthusiasm to buy paid publicity time on state-owned PTV, expressing a lack of faith in its impartiality and neutrality.

For example, PTV outrightly refused to allow either pictures of former prime minister Benazir Bhutto in any of her Pakistan Peoples Party election commercial or a clip of her statement, saying that she is a “convict” in a court of law and that no “criminal” can be shown on TV.

And if this ridiculous pick and choose policy is not off-putting enough, the state-owned PTV tariff for election commercials were so high, only very few – especially pro-government parties – could afford them. If the government kept airing its own commercials asking voters to pick only the best leaders, how come it did not allow all parties inexpensive commercial access to make a pitch for themselves, thereby helping the public decide?

According to the Liberal Forum, the rates fixed by the Current Affairs Division of PTV for the first phase of the election process, (till 15 September 2002), parties were offered to buy time at the rate of Rs 20,000 per minute. For the second phase (September 16 to 30) the rates were Rs 30,000 per minute and for the third phase (October 1 to 8) Rs 50,000 per minute.

The telecast time was announced between 9.30pm to 10.30pm with an option of repeat on [state-owned] PTV World on payment of an additional Rs 100,000. The rates for commercial spots (minimum one minute) during prime time (7pm to 9pm) were determined at Rs 132,250.

These rates effectively kept parties opposed to the military government of President General Pervez Musharraf out of the limelight. As for current affairs programmes on PTV, independent studies revealed that it gave greater coverage to the pro-military PML-Q in Khabarnama. This party was followed by alliance of Islamists, the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal.

The PML-Q received more time and prominence than the combined coverage received by the two former ruling parties, Benazir Bhutto's Pakistan Peoples Party and Nawaz Sharif's Pakistan Muslim League-N. The PML-Q got a total of 15 minutes on PTV during the period from September 10 to 23. During the same period the leading opposition party, the PPP-P got less than six minutes.

Growing Media Power

According to Liberal Forum, although there was no set criteria of how much coverage a single party should have got on the public service medium, in functional democracies due preference is given to the parties that had a strong presence in the previous parliament.

But then again, the independent television channels beaming in from outside Pakistan have been in the forefront of bringing the persons who aim to represent the people in the people's court, so to speak. The government may have been trying to keep politicians such as Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif and most others it doesn't like out of PTV, it failed to keep them out of other TV. And this has been a major victory for the power of electronic media to inform and educate in Pakistan .