| The
media in Pakistan has never been freer, and conditions to practice
journalism have rarely been better. That’s been the official
refrain these past few years. The truth, however – the
very crux of journalism – is starkly different. The statistics
tell a deadly tale.
No
less than 20 journalists have been recorded killed in Pakistan
between January 1, 2000, and November 20, 2006, including one
foreigner – The Wall Street Journal’s Daniel Pearl.
During this period, there have also been at least 68 recorded
cases of arrest or abduction of journalists, 77 cases of torture
or injury, 112 cases of explicit threats or intimidation, 20
cases of the media being banned, and at least 24 instances of
attacks on media property – in all, 318 cases of various
kinds of violence or intimidatory action against the media.
The
irony couldn’t be more pronounced: the rising number of
murders of and attacks on journalists, the banning of publications
and media reports on print, radio, TV and the internet, the
shutting down of radio stations, raids on printing presses,
institution of cases against journalists and restrictions on
media personnel from going about their duties, including aggressively
keeping journalists out of large swathes of territory, particularly
the tribal areas in the northwest bordering Afghanistan, have
all come about against the backdrop of an unprecedented expansion
of media space in the country.
Since the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority
(PEMRA) was set up in 2002 to open up the country’s airwaves
to private ownership, over 100 licenses of FM radio stations
have been issued to date, of which 62 are currently on air (26
in the Punjab, 19 in Sindh, 11 in the NWFP, two in Balochistan
and four in Azad Kashmir), while at least 26 licensed TV channels
are operational. Dozens more radio and TV channels are in the
pipeline.
The government’s policy of opening up even more
space for the private media, particularly in the broadcast sector,
is unarguably commendable. And there is nothing to suggest there
is an official policy to murder journalists or harass the media.
However, what is baffling is why the authorities have been less
than forthcoming in issuing clear policy statements denying
their complicity in serious cases of press harassment and intimidation,
including murder, in which their involvement has been widely
and publicly alleged.
In at least two instances the suspicion of the collusion
of secret agencies in the abduction or murder of journalists
has been accentuated by the disinclination of the authorities
to establish their non-involvement.
For instance, on June 16, 2006, the bullet-ridden body
of Hayatullah Khan, reporter for the Urdu-language daily Ausaf
and photographer for AFP was recovered. Khan had gone missing
six months earlier. His disappearance had come as no surprise
since he had a history of receiving threats from the government
agencies, Taliban and tribal elders alike for his reporting
of the clashes between the Pakistani forces and Taliban and
Al Qaeda in the tribal areas. He went missing after reporting
an explosion in Haisori town of North Waziristan on December
1, 2005. His story contradicted the official version, according
to which a senior Al Qaeda commander, Abu Hamza Rabia, had died
after an arms depot exploded inside a house. In his reports,
Hayatullah quoted locals as claiming the house was hit by an
air-launched missile. He photographed pieces of the missile
for EPA. The international media identified it as a Hellfire
missile fired from an American drone. Many believe Khan was
taken away by the military intelligence.
After vociferous demands from the media community, the
government formed a tribunal to determine who Hayatullah’s
killers were, but its findings have not been made public. There
were conflicting statements from government officials throughout
the period he remained missing.
His mother and brother say he told them that the government
was threatening him. He had reportedly been told to leave journalism
or the region, or accept a government job, which he refused
at his peril.
Then there is the case of Dilawar Khan Wazir of BBC and
national newspaper Dawn who was kidnapped by unidentified persons
from Islamabad in the third week of November 2006. The manner
of the reporter’s abduction from a taxi as he was travelling
from an area near the main office of the Islamabad police, his
account of interrogation by his abductors about his work in
the tribal areas, his torture – continual blindfolding
and bound hands right up to his dumping in a forested area –
all bear the distinct imprints of the intelligence agencies.
And the casual response of the ministries of interior and information
to the media’s barrage of questions has done little to
dispel this impression.
Another instance of suspected official involvement in
the disappearance of a media person is that of Munir Mengal,
the chief of Baloch Voice, a Balochi-language would-be TV channel
based in the UAE. Mengal went missing from Karachi soon after
he arrived here on a flight from Bahrain on April 7, 2006. Only
days earlier had he announced he would be launching the channel
to represent the views of “the Baloch nation.” His
family claims the secret services arrested him to unearth his
sources of funding. It appears odd that the authorities would
feel threatened by the launch of a vernacular language TV channel
since Sindhi, Punjabi and Pashto language channels already exist
in the other three provinces. Mengal’s case is perhaps
different because Pakistani forces have been battling rebellious
nationalists in Balochistan who seek greater national resources
that they contend have been denied them. It is against this
backdrop that suspicion of official involvement has been fuelled.
The authorities, of course, deny involvement, but speculation
of their complicity in Mengal’s disappearance is widespread.
Also worrisome is the authorities visibly increasing
level of determination to prevent journalists from entering
or reporting from the tribal areas. Several journalists have
been either detained, expelled from the region or obstructed
in one way or another from reporting on the government crackdown
against the Taliban and Al Qaeda militants in the region. Government
authorities are not the only ones involved in restricting journalism
in these areas; militant groups have also openly threatened
and attacked journalists, making the tribal areas the most dangerous
area in Pakistan for media personnel.
Overall, the range of intimidation of the media has ranged
from attacks in the field to attacks at the office, and even
at home. Identified intimidators have included members of the
government, military, police, intelligence agencies, religious
groups, politicians, landlords, etc. In some cases it is unclear
who the attackers have been. Not a single person has been prosecuted
for attacks on journalists. The targets of the media intimidation
expanded from last year’s list of journalists, freelancers,
television stations, newspaper officers and independent radio
this year, to cable service operators and internet websites.
Records available with Intermedia, a Pakistani media
assistance organisation, compiled from reported media, show
that 2006 has been the most violent of the six years under review
for journalists. At least four journalists have been murdered,
33 arrested or abducted, 47 injured or tortured, 23 threatened
or intimidated, 12 media properties attacked and three media
outlets banned.
The authorities may have failed to provide adequate protection
to journalists in Pakistan, but the media community has also
failed to adequately safeguard itself through greater networking
and organisation. A system is required whereby the response
by the media community to attacks against any of its members
or organisations is better coordinated, and where safety networks
and resources are established.The authorities may have failed
to provide adequate protection to journalists in Pakistan, but
the media community has also failed to adequately safeguard
itself through greater networking and organisation. A system
is required whereby the response by the media community to attacks
against any of its members or organisations is better coordinated,
and where safety networks and resources are established. 
|