WORLD AFFAIRS

David takes on Goliath-II

Pakistan is witnessing attempts at the systematic dismantling of institutions through manipulation and, where that fails, through downright intimidation and heavy-handed tactics.

BEENA SARWAR

WE mourn the passing away of the eminent scholar, Dr. Eqbal Ahmed, in the midst of a crisis brought up once more against the kind of situation he fought against all his life. It was not so long ago that he took up the issue of government-press relations in one of his compelling weekly columns in Dawn - when the Jang group of newspapers clashed with government might in the quest for press freedom. "If it is so determined, a government may beat up journalists and ruin a publishing house. But the life of man is short and the judgment of history can be lasting. A wise leader does not sacrifice the future on the altar of power which does not endure," he wrote ("David takes on Goliath", Dawn, February 7, 1999).

The words rang true then as they do now, at the time of writing this article, on May 12. This day, at about the time that Eqbal Ahmed was being laid to rest in Islamabad, the Lahore High Court began hearing the habeas corpus petition relating to the "kidnapping" of the Editor of The Friday Times, Najam Sethi. Four hours later, the court disposed of the writ petitions filed on Sethi's behalf demanding that he be produced before the court and medically examined, that charges against him be framed, and that the mala fide intention or otherwise of the detention be proved or disproved.

When Eqbal Ahmed wrote his "David and Goliath" article, the issue at stake - as taken up by himself and by many other eminent journalists, columnists, analysts and indeed, ordinary people - was not just that of one group of newspapers, just as now it is not about the detention of an individual journalist. The issue was, and is, freedom of expression and the visible efforts to influence or curb this expression, with far-reaching repercussions for the entire system. In his column, Eqbal Ahmed wrote: "I wish there was a way to convince Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif that each time an incident like this happens, a blow is struck against Pakistan's infant and stumbling democracy, of which he and his Cabinet members are by far the biggest beneficiaries. Like the Mulla Do Piaza of our folk tales, they are chopping off the branch on which they sit... The Government's assurances and disclaimers notwithstanding, at stake is the future of freedom in this country, and of the press in particular. It is one of those rare occasions when national interest should take preference over self-interest."

Instead, we are still witnessing attempts at the systematic dismantling of institutions through manipulation, and where that fails, through downright intimidation and heavy-handed tactics that appear ominously close to those witnessed in fascist regimes.

Can such tactics prevail in the long run? Power, as Eqbal Ahmed wrote, does not endure. Today, technology ensures that news of oppression gets about fast, bringing with it an equal and opposite reaction, not necessarily in terms of intimidation and heavy handedness but in terms of moral outrage.

K.M. CHOUDARY/ AP
Najam Sethi's wife Jugnu Mohsin at an anti-government protest demonstration in Lahore on May 14.

Despite the official propaganda about the Jang group's "tax evasion" and Najam Sethi's "suspected links with hostile intelligence agencies", many people do not quite buy the government line. They make no bones about the fact that they see the harassment, kidnapping and detention of Sethi as part of an ongoing vendetta against the press. There is plenty to support this view, despite the official line that Sethi's arrest had nothing to do with his "journalistic activities" and despite the government's protestations of being "media friendly" as Information Minister Mushahid Hussain termed it on World Press Freedom Day. Freedom there is, but it is selective. And most of the people who are free seem to be those who harangue, threaten and pillory, in statements printed prominently by sections of the press, with the government taking no notice of these open incitements to violence and murder.

Sethi is not the only journalist who has been arrested or harassed over the last few weeks. The list of similar incidents that have occurred in Lahore alone is long - some reported and some not reported. It started with the detention from May 2 to 4 of M.A.K. Lodhi for helping a BBC team film a documentary on corruption in Pakistan. Soon after, columnist Hussain Haqqani was picked up - he too gave an interview to the BBC team, although like Sethi, he has not been formally charged with this "crime". Other journalists and mediapersons who granted interviews to or helped the BBC team have also been harassed to the extent that one of them, an American citizen, had to take refuge in the U.S. Embassy. The Friday Times Web site was hacked and its printing press kept under surveillance and threat for a few days by plainclothesmen from the intelligence agencies. Hardly the kind of behaviour one expects in a country where the government is media-friendly.

The Friday Times is known for its reports, analyses and editorials that are critical of government policies and for exposing corruption. For this, it has received several raps on the knuckles, including the withdrawal of government advertisements, which is but one of the indicators of official displeasure, as independent publications know all too well.

But being stingy about government advertising is one thing, to have armed policemen in uniform barge into a journalist's house, beat him up, smash his telephone and drag him off without allowing him to put on his shoes or glasses and leaving his wife tied up in the dressing room is another. So is denying any knowledge of his whereabouts for a good five days, despite fears expressed in court about his safety during the proceedings in a habeas corpus petition and eventually, following court directives to ascertain his whereabouts and the charges against him, only to say that the detenu is "in the custody of the ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence), which is investigating his suspected links with hostile intelligence agencies."

This is an insult to intelligence, if one may use the term. There were two senior police officials in uniform among the raiding party that picked up Sethi; the police come under provincial jurisdiction, while the ISI, which is directly answerable to the Prime Minister, is a federal agency. Secondly, even if Sethi was handed over to the ISI, it should have been done within the framework of law. He has to have been charged with some crime under some law. No such case exists.

In fact, while disposing of the writ petitions, the Lahore High Court admitted that Sethi was "not an accused". That is, he has not been charged with any crime. Yet, he is detained and the habeas corpus petition not held as maintainable.

The Lahore High Court stated that it could ask for him to be produced in court because he was with the ISI, an agency not under its jurisdiction and headed by a serving Army General. Does this mean that anyone can be picked up by the ISI or handed over to the ISI without any charges, and with no constitutional rights? If the ISI was headed by a retired Army officer, as has been the case, would it then come within the court's jurisdiction? What about the dozens of case laws and precedents (some cited during the hearing, like that of Pakistan People's Party MNA (Member of the National Assembly) Mukhtar Rana) of detenus having been produced in habeas corpus petition even during martial law? Where should ordinary citizens go for relief in Pakistan? The Supreme Court, the Judge suggested. With or without this suggestion that would be the next obvious step. But is it an answer?

Even if the Army does not fall within the court's jurisdiction, the ISI is not a branch of the Army, as Sethi's defence counsel, Dr. Khalid Ranjha, pointed out. It is not even a constitutional body. "Nor is it within the ISI's jurisdiction to register cases, arrest or investigate," he said. "Its job is to give communiques to the Prime Minister."

Other questions arise. Asma Jehangir of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan asks: "Should people now fear the ISI and the Army as they fear the police, instead of looking up to them as institutions which defend the people's and the country's national interests?" She said: "The Government is doing a disservice to both institutions by portraying them as within their rights to act arbitrarily. It is time for civilian governments to build bridges between the Army and the people, not drive rifts between them."

It is not just this rift that is being created. The rift between the Government and the press is deepening again. The backlash, the public opinion and international pressure created because of the Government's mishandling of the Jang group issue, is again visible with far greater intensity.

A final observation. By over-reacting the way it did, the Government has ensured an unprecedented viewership for the BBC documentary when it is finally aired, not only in Pakistan but throughout the world. Only, this time it is unlikely that television viewers will get to see this film on Pakistan Television on which the BBC's "Princess and Playboy" (a programme on Benazir Bhutto and her husband Asif Zardari) was transmitted with great glee by the present Government. But then, that was apparently before the BBC launched its "anti-Pakistan drive".

Beena Sarwar, who is based in Lahore, is Editor, The News on Sunday.