Media and Musharraf by Mazhar Abbas

Rejoinder to Ayaz Amir

Mazhar Abbas

Saturday, December 14, 2013

This is in reference to the article of a highly respected columnist Mr Ayaz Amir, published in The News, on “Musharraf and Media.” It was also translated and appeared in daily Jang, on Saturday, December 07, 2013.

Following is my rejoinder since I was the Secretary General of Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists (PFUJ), when former President General (R) Pervez Musharraf imposed ban on media. Both General Ziaul Haq and Pervez Musharraf must have done some “good” but in the end they would always be remembered as dictators, who had violated the constitution and not accountable to anyone. Democratic rulers must have done lot of “bad”, but in the end they were elected by the people and accountable to the people.

I wondered from where should I start. It’s a long struggle for the “Freedom of the Press.” starting from August 2nd, 1950 till this day.

On August 2, 2013, PFUJ observed its 63 years of struggle. Should I start from M.A. Shakoor, Asrar Ahmad or Nisar Usmani, Minhaj Barna or should I start from the first journalist, who went to prison in 1948 or the 200 journalists who courted arrest under General Musharraf? Should I start with rigorous imprisonment awarded by the military courts to over 400 journalists under Gen Zia or sedition case against PFUJ, under Musharraf? Should I start from the telephone call I got from the intelligence official, threatening me, in case we started street protest against the ban on Nov 3, 2007 or cases registered for marching to the PM House, few days after emergency plus? I was told

“You are on zero tolerance. I advised you to stay at home.” Those, who believe that media is responsible for invasion of Indian culture and media also correct their facts. Under General Zia, press was suppressed but Indian movies and VCR culture were promoted. Under Gen Musharraf, after Nov 3rd, Pakistani news channels were banned but in a meeting he was requested by his aides to allow Star Plus, Sony and Indian movies. I am all for competition whether in the field of news channels or entertainment but for the record, it’s the policy of our establishment, not the media, to depoliticise people.

I will confine myself to what actually happened under Musharraf and negation to the struggle for the freedom of the press and would not go into Zia’s darkest era.

Everyone has a right to have likes and dislikes. But as a great admirer of Ayaz Amir’s columns, I was rather disappointed not because he had given all credit to Musharraf, but denying credit to 90 days struggle from Nov 3, 2007 to February, 2008, if nothing more. If he could have given some credit to Gen Zia, he should have said few lines for late Nisar Usmani and Minhaj Barna and for PFUJ. We have not struggled for the freedom of the print media but for the whole media. If you can’t praise us, at least don’t discredit journalists’ struggle. The stories of struggle, rigorous imprisonments, military courts, flogging, losing jobs were not fake but real. If someone want to see the record, there are at least two well researched work, one by a student at Punjab University and the other by Prof Tauseef Ahmad, head of Mass Communication Department, Urdu University. I am no Zameer Niazi nor can I be, but I do have collection of some documents of the struggle and also ban imposed by Gen Zia and Musharraf.

But let me put some facts on record for all those who made tall claims of giving credit to Musharraf for giving freedom to media. Like Ayaz Sahab, the former president also once said, “I don’t know whether there was any struggle for freedom of the press, but I have given freedom of expression.”

Pakistan’s two leading news channels including Geo started their transmissions from Dubai in 2001-02 and despite repeated request were not allowed “landing rights”. They covered 2002 elections and faced many “notices” from the then government of Musharraf. There was nothing the establishment could do but to accept them. However, these two channels faced huge financial burden because they were not given landing rights.

He was then advised to bring the channels under some kind of “regulations”, since denying landing rights tactics had failed. Thus, media was regulated through Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002. If you go through the contents of the ordinance, there were more restrictions and the Pemra authority came directly under presidential or government control. President appoints its chairman and government nominates its members.

When the Pemra Ordinance came before the parliamentary committee, PFUJ was also asked to submit journalists’ point of view. I appeared before the committee headed by late Sher Afgan Niazi and put following submission.

(1) Its “black law” and another form of Ayub Khan’s Press and Publication Ordinance (which Ayaz Sahab believe was repealed by the caretaker government in 1988, but as far as I remember it was Mr Junejo, who allowed free declaration policy in 1986). (2) it will create monopolies, which could have negative impact. (3) President of Pakistan and government should not be allowed to nominate its chairman and members, as they could use Pemra like they use Ministry of Information. (4) President and government could impose ban, whenever it suits them.

The committee rejected our submission but we were vindicated when Musharraf imposed ban in 2007. After the parliament adopted Pemra Law, the government started the “misuse”. As they started giving TV licence “under conditions”, they also started using relevant clauses particularly interpretation of clauses of “national interest” and “Ideology of Pakistan”.

Musharraf’s own group of “friends” felt the pain for the first time when media was not allowed to air the joint statement of people like Lt Gen (R) Moinuddin Haider, Javed Jabbar, which he felt very critical to him. One my own talk show, on a private TV channel “Hum” was not allowed due to pressure.

His government and his intelligence agencies were very touchy on shows on Balochistan, and channels faced lot of pressure and notices were issued. In some cases fines were imposed and programmes were not allowed. During his tenure, his government not only used Pemra to put pressure on TV channels but also “Press, Newspapers, News Agencies and Books Registration (Amended) Ordinance, 2007.”

Thus, dozens of news channels faced scores of “notices” from Pemra like “Press Advice” from 2002 to 2008. Even after Pemra Law, the FM radios were not allowed to air “news or current affairs” for several years. Some got the permission through legal battle. At times, channels and FM radios were “off air” by the authorities for their criticism on Musharraf.

Lawyers movement of March 9, 2007 was the turning point. All this happened prior to the final onslaught on November 3, 2007. Those who negate our struggle today praised the media for “lifting” the lawyers movement.

PFUJ once again took the lead and within 24 hours after the sacking of Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry issued a strong statement against the action and termed the action illegal and un constitutional. We extended our support to the lawyers community. As Secretary General PFUJ, I personally called the then President of Supreme Court Bar Association, Mr Munir Malik and offered joint movement.

As the movement started picking up, the signs of nervousness were noticed in Musharraf and his aides. Media houses were pressurised in different ways, at times channels were off air during CJP procession and speech etc.

Finally, Musharraf and his team decided to impose the ban on Nov 03. PFUJ staged 88 days protest sit-in against the ban. Even the veterans like late Minhaj Barna despite his illness and poets like Ahmad Faraz joined us in the campaign. Even in three days of Eid we did not abandon our protest.

When people started watching channels on “dish” the government through Ministry of Commerce on Nov 12 imposed “restriction on import of equipment used for reception, broadcast and distribution of satellite signals pertaining to the field of electronic media”.

Ayaz Sahab, not many people know that even when the government decided to relax the ban, media owners were asked to sign an “undertaking”. One by one they were invited and given “seven para” undertaking. They were threatened that in case of any violation their licence would be cancelled. As far as I remember only two news channels including Geo refused to sign (I have copies of all these documents). Lastly, on the Election Day of February 2008, Pemra issued notices to all channels with title, “Election-2008 Political Campaign- Media Silence Period”. I was the host of an election transmission and the then Law Minister, Ms Shahida Jamil was the guest. All of a sudden she was told that Pemra had asked us to stop the show. She was shocked. The great Musharraf amended the Pemra Law, 2007 under which channels were prohibited to “criticise” the President of Pakistan and all channels were asked to endorse it.

It was after Ms Sherry Rehman become the Information Minister, the law was amended and Musharraf’s Pemra Law was repealed.

It said, “The draconian laws that threatened coercive action against the press will be removed via this bill to begin the process of providing for a free press in Pakistan. This involves as a first step, the withdrawal of all the provisions of Ordinance XIII of 2002 inserted through Ordinance LXV of 2007.”

Praise, whoever you like to praise for whatever action. Media may not be very responsible, which it should be, but at least don’t deny us from the credit this journalist community deserve, even if likes of you are now in practical politics.

Mazhar Abbas is a senior journalist and ex-Secretary General of PFUJ. 

Musharraf and the media by Ayaz Mir

Musharraf and the media
Ayaz Amir
Friday, December 06, 2013
From Print Edition

Musharraf and the mediaWhat exactly is our problem when it comes to discussing the status of the media? Do we suffer from short memories? Or are we purposely selective with the truth?

The Pakistani media today is more electronic than print…meaning to say that the electronic component in terms of reach and influence outweighs its print counterpart. Newspapers existed since 1947 and before. The rise and spread of the electronic media is a recent phenomenon.

How did this come about? Private TV channels, now a part of our lives and often not for the best, did not descend from the heavens. They were not conjured out of thin air. It lay with the government of the day, headed by one Gen Pervez Musharraf, to allow or disallow them. It was his decision, his alone, to allow them and give them the freedom they have. Why is it so hard for some people to swallow this fact? Does it injure their self-esteem?

Other failures can be placed at Musharraf’s door, for which he has paid a heavy price. But for being the godfather of the modern Pakistani media, how can anyone in his right mind deny him the credit? This used to be an impoverished profession. I remember Mushahid Hussain telling me – this was in 1979-80 – that Chaudhry Saab, ghar ke daane hon toh journalist ban sakte hain, meaning thereby that private means were necessary in order to survive as a journalist.

I used to work my back off writing my first columns for the weekly Viewpoint – typing, revising and rewriting – and getting Rs75 per column, and thinking when I received my cheque that manna had fallen from the skies. The fat salaries this profession now enjoys, or at least its top-rankers enjoy, is because of one person and the decision he took: Musharraf. Let no scribe or anchor on horseback forget this.

Pakistan’s democrats – Benazir Bhutto, Nawaz Sharif – could address huge public gatherings. As prime ministers they never could put themselves to the test of live TV press conferences. Love or hate him, Musharraf was the first Pakistani leader to do so

Not that journalists have not struggled for press freedom. They have and mightily too. Journalists have died in the line of duty. But that is not the same thing as saying that it was because of some heroic struggle that the electronic media got the space it now has.

As army chief and military dictator Musharraf was very much his own master, especially with the political parties in disarray and top leaders out of the country. And many journalists, later to become fierce champions of democracy and freedom, were not averse to eating from his hand and dancing to his tune.

Add to this his own sense of comfort with the media and he felt no qualms in letting the media or information revolution come to Pakistan. Apart from anything else, it lent an air of respectability to his regime. Here was a military man allowing this much media freedom…this played wonderfully in the west.

In any event, big media houses, not working journalists, were the first to enter this field, followed by captains of industry and even characters with less than clean backgrounds. These elements did not put a pistol to Musharraf’s head to get their TV licences.

Military regimes, and even civilian governments (remember Bhutto), had been known for curtailing press freedom. Here was a military man opening up media space. Hang him for his sins by all means but, if hearts not be that small, allow him the good he may have done.

It is the untutored mind which sees things in black and white. No one put more stringent curbs on the press than Gen Zia. In his time we saw censorship and even pre-censorship, and journalists imprisoned, and three of them flogged. But there was another side to Zia as well. In those days government permission was necessary for newspapers to appear, as per the infamous Press and Publications Ordinance. Zia allowed The Muslim to appear from Islamabad, the Frontier Post to come out from Peshawar and Lahore, the Nawai Waqt to come out from Karachi, the Jang to take out an edition from Lahore.

So we have this paradox: the father of censorship, the father of flogging, allowing this press expansion. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto should have allowed this expansion, but he did not, he having a very thin skin when it came to criticism.

And the Press and Publications Ordinance was done away with not by any elected leader but by Illahi Baksh Soomro when he was interim information minister in the cabinet installed by Zia after he had dismissed Muhammad Khan Junejo as prime minister (but, if memory serves, Soomro did this after Zia was dead and safely buried).

We remember Ayub Khan for the folly of the 1965 war and the popular movement which dislodged him from power (although, as much evidence suggests, Bhutto and Gen Yahya schemed in tandem to get rid of Ayub). But Ayub also had achievements to his credit, Pakistan doing well under his watch until the 1965 war.

Yahya is remembered for his drinking, his mistresses and the infamy of the 1971 war. But he undid One Unit, which was a popular demand, and held the country’s first general election. And at the Rabat Islamic Conference he stoutly resisted the move to give India observer status. The aftermath of the 1970 elections proved too much for him. Perhaps it would have proved too much for anyone.

Closer home, we see Chief Justice Chaudhry criticised for excessive suo-motuism and interfering in executive matters. But he has made the judiciary strong and put searching questions to institutions hitherto considered sacrosanct and untouchable. When all else is forgotten this will be remembered. (Take the swift reinstatement by the Islamabad High Court of the sacked Nadra chairman, Tariq Malik. In the Pakistan of old such a thing would not have happened. It is the Chaudhry-engendered climate in which this becomes possible.)

It is a bit amazing therefore to see bar councils dithering over the question of whether to dine out My Lord Chaudhry when his time is up. Have a heart, black-coat comrades. If Chaudhry doesn’t deserve to be bid farewell in style no one does. For good or ill, he has left his mark on our times and another like him, good points and bad, will not come that quickly. Churlishness will not diminish his stature. My lawyer friends will look small.

But to return to my argument…to dwell on past contradictions is to point out the obvious: that good and bad co-exist side by side. This is part of the human condition.

Guys like me have written at length, perhaps more than others, about the baneful effects of military rule. There is no shortage of journalists of the old school, of the Zia days really, who have seen the insides of prisons. But none of this should be a licence for writing fiction and subscribing to fairy-tales that would have the younger generation believe that the space enjoyed and sometimes misused by the electronic media today was won in a Battle of Stalingrad waged by the fearless defenders of the fourth estate. This is a beguiling tale but, alas, like most fairy-tales not true.

By the time of the lawyers’ movement Musharraf’s brilliant idea of TV channels by the dozen and saturation news coverage had come back to hit him, he himself becoming the first and principal casualty of the thing he had helped create. That takes away nothing from the fact that even though a military dictator he did what every ruler before him, military or civilian, had feared to do: give free rein to the electronic media. Among a multiplicity of failures this must count as some achievement.

If the media today has different problems – it can criticise the army and ISI but knights of the media become very cautious when it comes to entities like the Taliban and the MQM – that is no fault of Musharraf’s. These are self-imposed fears, or limitations imposed by the rigour of the times.

Email: winlust@yahoo.com