ccording to news reports, journalist Saleem Shehzad was “lifted” in broad daylight in Islamabad on 29th May, tortured, killed and dumped in a canal two days later by “unknown” assailants. The only problem with this version of events is Shehzad’s last written testament to Human Rights Watch in Pakistan some months ago in which he communicated his fear that the ISI, rather than some unknown forces, had warned him off for wading into troubled waters and might exact punishment. Additionally, his wife has confirmed that a senior ISI officer was in touch with her husband and had even “interrogated” him some time ago.
Shehzad was a journalist of international repute. He was an expert on the chief state and non-state actors in the war on terrorAl-Qaeda, Taliban, ISI, Pakistan Army and various former jihadi-turned terrorist outfits operating in Punjab and FATA like the Jaish-e-Mohammad, Harkatul Islam and Lashkar-e-Tayba. As such, it was inevitable that his reports would incur someone’s displeasure and even hostility. Indeed, he was briefly detained by the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2006 but later cultivated sufficiently good relations with them to interview their leading lights. His insightful book on the Taliban has just been published in London and will be required reading even for experts on the subject.
In recent times, his writings focused on areas of critical concern. He wrote about internal political developments in the armed forces of Pakistan, dilating on extensions, postings and transfers and as well as doctrinal, strategic and tactical maneuverings. More ominously, he warned of the existence and development of Al-Qaeda-Taliban “cells” launched by Ilyas Kashmiri, a former ISI asset and current Taliban commander, in the bowels of the security services, especially in the Navy. He also highlighted a complex nexus between the ISI and elements of the Afghan Taliban in which key “wanted” commanders like Mulla Omar, Mulla Baradar, Mulla Nazir and warlord Siraj Haqqani figured. In his latest piece – whose promised second part will never see the light of print – he criticized the leaders of the Pakistan Navy for willfully ignoring the threat from Al-Qaeda “cells” inside its rank and file, thereby exposing PNS Mehran to the May 22nd attack, and pledged to expose the incompetent or fearful decision makers in all the three services responsible for the country’s security. The dye was cast.
Saleem Shehzad was one of several Pakistani journalists on the ISI’s list of troublemakers. Most have already informed their families, media employers and international watchdogs of their unsolicited interaction with the agency. A few have been roughed up already while others have been advised to heed the writing on the wall.
These are testing times for Pakistani journalists caught in various sectarian, ethnic, Taliban and Agency crossfires. On top of that is the plunging credibility of the armed forces and their Intel Agencies in the eyes of Pakistanis and a desperate bid by them to halt the slide by silencing civilian dissent. Fear stalks Pakistan’s “free” media like never before. Unfortunately, however, the Zardari government is too weak or scared to do anything about it while the opposition is too scattered and divided to speak with any authority on the subject beyond the obligatory “press release” and prayer.
If silence is not an option, what to do?
First, all journalists who have been “advised” or threatened by any state or non-state actor to watch their tongue should lodge detailed confidential reports of such interactions with a media watchdog that enjoys their confidence. This practice will serve as a deterrent because the media watchdog will be in a position to reveal the record in the event any threat is actually carried out, as Human Rights Watch did in Saleem Shehzad’s case. Families, friends and colleagues may also be emboldened to collectively harness the judiciary to bear witness to, and redress, all such infringements of fundamental rights.
Second, the media must help create a national consensus to back the armed forces and government in the war against terrorism. There should be no two opinions that this isn’t our war. Having suffered the most losses, the army and Intel agencies are easily provoked by shrill, sometimes ill-informed critics belittling their competence or accusing them of complicity or lack of zeal in defending national honour or sovereignty. Perhaps a sense of media proportion on releasing and analyzing “sensitive” information on the basis of dubious sources may help to diffuse provocation and improve the situation.
Pakistan is passing through a rough transition in state-nationhood. For the first time, the media is able and free to debate and discuss complex issues and demand accountability of public servants in the army and bureaucracy and elected representatives alike. The civil-military imbalance is also coming under democratic scrutiny in an unprecedented manner with parliament desperately trying to impose a measure of input and oversight on the conduct and national security policies of the armed forces. A proliferation of enquiries focused on the role of the armed forces and security agencies in many areas of security and governance is creating tension and raising blood pressures in all the organs of the state. The situation calls for restraint, responsibility and accountability in equal measure from the media, military and politicians as stakeholders.
No comments:
Post a Comment