M B Naqvi

The writer is a well-known

journalist and freelance columnist

mbnaqvi@cyber.net.pk

The newly appointed Information Minister Nisar Memon has stoutly defended the Pakistani electronic media, owned and controlled by the Government, and has said that they are doing their duty -- of countering Indian propaganda. Anyone who cares to watch the PTV or listen to Radio Pakistan can easily certify what the Minister has said. They do a fair job of countering Indian propaganda and go on the counter offensive -- according to their light. But the Minister will be well advised not to go on with this supposed national duty.

It is unnecessary, indeed wrong. The purpose of the media is, and should be, to inform -- and to entertain. But inform what? It is necessary to ask this basic question and answer it honestly. The information should comprise facts, seen as objectively as humanly possible. That is the best policy that gives credibility to the media -- and indirectly to their controllers and beneficiaries. In this country where dictatorship has been the norm, the government and people around them have been volubly and ubiquitously concerned about two things: the first is countering the Indian propaganda by louder and even cruder propaganda of our own. Secondly a great deal of expertise is deployed to underscore the need for improving the 'image' of the Great Helmsman (of the day) and the country. Somehow this image thing is thought to be very important and has always entailed a huge and growing expenditure under the budgetary head of the Information Ministry.

To begin with this whole concern with Indian propaganda and the question of the image is based on wrong premises. Why can't Pakistan let the Indians shout themselves hoarse and make whatever propaganda they want to make? If it is not based on facts it will fall flat on its face. If it is true, it will have its impact on the rest of the world and indeed Pakistan. Pakistan and its rulers cannot prevent that effect. The way to counter Indian propaganda is to speak the truth and acknowledge facts spoken by others even if it hurts for the moment. Anything then said would have a great impact. Pakistan governments have usually overdone this propaganda thing. Why cant we rely on doing simple things like doing the right thing and speaking the truth.

It is true that major western governments from whom we try to learn everything do resort to propaganda. But they use sophisticated techniques. They do so because they have imperialistic interests in far flung areas that have intrinsically inimical interests to those of the so-called metropolitan powers. We in Pakistan have no such interests. We can afford to speak the truth. There is one particular kind of Indian propaganda that generally hits its target: Pakistan has not been able to make democracy work and all too frequently it has to make do with a military dictatorship. It is such a big reality that no man of propaganda, no matter how slick or crude he is, can hide. We should recognise the fact for what it is: any attempt to put any gloss on it or to find fault with democracy would only invite derision. The country ought to be more concerned with its own affairs, particularly managing the economy so well that the people's opportunities of getting gainful employment and a chance to live a decent life increases. Should this be the case -- which is not -- no amount of adverse propaganda by a more efficient spin doctor would achieve anything.

Coming to the actual situation today, Pakistan's policies urgently require de-escalation of tensions with India and a resumption of dialogue. The aim has to be, or should be, to recreate more peaceful and friendly ties with India. Pakistan also has to support the aims of SAARC, which necessitate region-wide normalisation of relations, more trade and more cultural exchanges. This would presuppose a certain kind of media approach that does not needlessly rub the Indians on the wrong side. Indian conduct, whether in the domestic sphere or in international dealings, particularly about SAARC, can be faulted. Given the track record of Pakistani electronic media, their counter attacks tend to be often savage. This is a hoary tradition. But would it achieve what the country needs above all else. The Minister's reassurance that his underlings will counter Indian propaganda needs uncommonly like a call to arms in the propaganda war. The Indians are already at it. That can only vitiate the inter-state relations and defeat Pakistan's own purposes, if one is not misjudging the situation.

Pakistan recently hosted a SAARC conference of Information Ministers that, quite properly, decided that journalists should be able to travel within the region without visas, semi visas or easily obtained visas. Although the PTV's decision to interview Indian Information Minister Sushma Swaraj was a fine and constructive idea, though in the event it reeked of one upmanship as the interview frequently degenerated into a debate. But this was the first such occasion and the atmosphere between the two counties is surcharged and the questions and answers could understandably not be free of rancour. With a trifle more dignity and constructive spirit, such moves in the needed direction will make the larger objectives easier of achievement. As it happens, these are the days when ban on Indian channels continues, though it was an occasion when it should have been lifted. Pakistan should have dared India by lifting various other restrictions on the import of Indian books, magazines and other newspapers along with various other recently imposed restrictions.

It is necessary to remember that Pakistani newspapers could be sold in India on a daily basis until August 1965 and Indian newspapers were available in Pakistan everyday. Were Pakistanis' loyalties subverted? Why can't it be done again? Are the two states so weak and hollow that access of their people to the media of the other would bring them down? Much the same needs to be said for an easier visa regime. Those who share the aims of SAARC can clearly see that the kind of restrictions that India and Pakistan have imposed on each other the very spirit in which all regional states should move -- unless, of course the two seriously want a showdown. But then the people on both sides do not want any showdown; it will be too dangerous for all. The fact of the matter is that the option of war must clearly be given up because it has actually become impractical. Other non-war like options for resolving unsettled problems will have to be resorted to. In which case, the sundering of communication links and imposing an iron curtain on each other media would seem to be foolish.

There is one context that is not covered here. It is the political needs of the Regime. The President is facing an election -- a thing inherently unpredictable. He wants 'positive results' as do all dictators in his situation. He has to win legitimacy and an endorsement of his remaining President in the future from the elected Assemblies, get them to give indemnity to all Army officers who have acted outside the law and amend the Constitution somehow the way he wants. Now, he is not a politician with a party behind him. He has to fall back on -- what? On spin doctors and intelligence goons, who else?

But this is a game that has been played before. Intelligence services do bring short-term gains, though what happens to such a regime's longevity is subject to other ineluctable factors. Spin doctors' ability to win respectability -- the 'image' -- and votes is totally untested and questionable. Ayub Khan and Zia lasted long. But that was due to two main factors: the US support and its readiness to arrange adequate -- by Pakistani standards -- aid. If the US liked him, the dictator's image was rated good. No ruler came to power with the media's support or stayed a day longer in power because of unstinted media projection. Has anyone any time to look at this country's actual history.

Anyway the pursuit of amicable settlements requires a congenial atmosphere for talks -- from which there is no escape. Pakistan will do itself good by having a media policy that is informed with the country's actual priorities, though pressures on it for political projection of the Regime may be considerable. If the Ruler is wise, he would allow the media the option of truth telling, fair dealing and facing facts. That will make the government that Nisar Memon represents more effective despite being non-democratic. Its 'image' will take care of itself. In any case, so much concern with the 'image' and the media is unhealthy. After all, there has to be some linkage between substance of the image; and if the image contradicts the substance beneath, it cannot stick or serve any useful purpose. Let us be concerned with substance and achievements.