Crime shows are all the rage nowadays. Minutiae of grizzly murders, lovers’ betrayals and rape are re-enacted. They are – to say the least – incongruous, poorly shot and use actors who don’t look the part. Not recommended for the faint-hearted. Add to that, some comic relief. Political satire, making use of actors who are made to look like their real-life counterparts, can send you into fits of laughter. Reality can be funny. However, if you lack a sense of humor, tune in to us: ‘agenda-driven’ talk show hosts.
The only thing all genres have in common are their limitations. Crime shows are all very well if they don’t re-enact extra-judicial killings, religious animosity and ‘jihadist’ ventures. Political satire is funny until they start mimicking the military brass. That will ensure a Pemra notice at best; whereas the worst possibility is to get shut down – as witnessed on November 3, 2007. Talk shows, meanwhile, must self-censor and maintain balance – read: stick up for the military. If you beg to differ, you will be dismissed as a CIA or Raw agent and that will put an end to your credibility, not to mention your patriotism too. Don’t even ask me what the connection between the two is. I’m still trying to figure it out myself.
Let me tell you a little story. I happened to make the acquaintance of a retired brigadier some years ago. He is a regular watcher of my show, along with other retired army officials. How do I know? Elementary, my dear Watson. When your mug appears on prime time on the highest rated channel in Pakistan, you can be sure that you’re being watched by the country’s high and mighty. Not the mightiest, but close. The brigadier appreciated my efforts during the Swat operation, sent me bravo messages when I spoke of enlightened moderation and expressed his dissatisfaction on my “mild” interviews with high-level politicians as well as foreign dignitaries. If I dared to acquire an aggressive stance while interviewing a uniformed man, I was “losing focus” and falling prey to “outside” influence.
My recent shows where I have questioned the military operation in Balochistan, and exposed the grief of the families of the “Adiala 11” (a term coined by Cyril Almeida), the messages carry a disgusted undertone. Here’s a preview: “You unfortunately have gravitated into an abyss called agenda journalism based on prefixed but removed from reality thoughts not even on convictions...” He doesn’t think very highly of politicians either: “Lying is second nature for them like drinking a glass of water; the trait you so strain to uncover...but are now being driven in it or by it; your pick. Whether it be the nuclear blasts or Kargil or the first ever attempt at internal coup within the army by a serving ISI chief, Ziauddin, who as a prize for this help was asked to take over as COAS just after making Musharraf the CJCSC two months before; it baffled everyone, no one could make sense of this action. So, despite Musharraf not being in the country of which they thought as the right timing; they misread the national resolve thus triggering a “COUNTER” coup within the Army, the rest is history...”
Yes sir! The rest is history. However, if I dare to disagree with you would you think my ‘narcissistic desire has seized my soul’ or that I suffer from a “below-average” mind? From where I see it, his highness, former chief of army staff General (r) Musharraf left Pakistan in a far more dismal state than it was on October 12 1999. When asked to decide between a rock and a hard place, he opted for both. Siding with the US then was for the greater good of Pakistan. When given the option of carrying on as president and possibly facing impeachment, or choosing to retire and play golf, he chose the latter. But the only unpatriotic selfish ones to choose life and freedom over the country’s well-being are Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif. Right.
Musharraf not only thought for himself but also others who could help prolong ‘himself’s’ reign on power. Enter: the NRO. An ordinance crafted by a foreign power, negotiated by the then DG ISI, implemented by the then chief of army staff that continues to make a mockery of democracy and malign politicians and the parliament that actually rejected it in the first place. That is history’s real dilemma. If you start narrating the NRO’s history from 2009, Zardari, PPP and other politicians emerge as villains, whereas if you go back and start from 2007 when this ordinance was promulgated and negotiated, the onus shifts to Musharraf and the then DG ISI.
Retired army officials expect journalists to forejudge civilians’ patriotism based on their decisions. However, a mere question regarding the strategy of the establishment deserves shunning.
Media is lauded when it grills the ‘bloody civilians’ over the slightest of mistakes they make in this placebo-governance. But when the same journalists pose questions to the powers-that-be, they are termed un-patriotic. If we are allowed to interrogate the losses of Pakistan Railways, discuss the damages incurred by PIA and expose the corruption in Steel Mills, shouldn’t we also be allowed to ask why our own army is conducting an operation in Balochistan? Why can we not question the wisdom of those who chose to use private jihadi organisations as a strategic tool? Why does questioning the establishments’ strategic decisions automatically put us on the payroll of the Jewish lobby or the CIA? What is the maximum a journalist can do? Ask questions. Regardless of how inane, the only one harmed in the process is the one who puts forth the question.
It is a fact that military establishments are powerful in many countries. But they are also answerable to the parliament, judiciary and the media. When needed, General Petraeus, Leon Penetta and McChrystal have been called before the congress and asked to explain themselves and their decisions. Mind you, these have been open hearings, not in-camera briefings.
You see, Mr Brigadier, the world is a difficult place to live in. One can’t bear authority without responsibility. If the establishment wants to maintain its holier-than-thou persona by calling the shots on decisions that drive this country, questions will be raised. And they will have to be answered – not by devout ‘fans’ of the military brass – but by the holy highnesses themselves.
The only thing all genres have in common are their limitations. Crime shows are all very well if they don’t re-enact extra-judicial killings, religious animosity and ‘jihadist’ ventures. Political satire is funny until they start mimicking the military brass. That will ensure a Pemra notice at best; whereas the worst possibility is to get shut down – as witnessed on November 3, 2007. Talk shows, meanwhile, must self-censor and maintain balance – read: stick up for the military. If you beg to differ, you will be dismissed as a CIA or Raw agent and that will put an end to your credibility, not to mention your patriotism too. Don’t even ask me what the connection between the two is. I’m still trying to figure it out myself.
Let me tell you a little story. I happened to make the acquaintance of a retired brigadier some years ago. He is a regular watcher of my show, along with other retired army officials. How do I know? Elementary, my dear Watson. When your mug appears on prime time on the highest rated channel in Pakistan, you can be sure that you’re being watched by the country’s high and mighty. Not the mightiest, but close. The brigadier appreciated my efforts during the Swat operation, sent me bravo messages when I spoke of enlightened moderation and expressed his dissatisfaction on my “mild” interviews with high-level politicians as well as foreign dignitaries. If I dared to acquire an aggressive stance while interviewing a uniformed man, I was “losing focus” and falling prey to “outside” influence.
My recent shows where I have questioned the military operation in Balochistan, and exposed the grief of the families of the “Adiala 11” (a term coined by Cyril Almeida), the messages carry a disgusted undertone. Here’s a preview: “You unfortunately have gravitated into an abyss called agenda journalism based on prefixed but removed from reality thoughts not even on convictions...” He doesn’t think very highly of politicians either: “Lying is second nature for them like drinking a glass of water; the trait you so strain to uncover...but are now being driven in it or by it; your pick. Whether it be the nuclear blasts or Kargil or the first ever attempt at internal coup within the army by a serving ISI chief, Ziauddin, who as a prize for this help was asked to take over as COAS just after making Musharraf the CJCSC two months before; it baffled everyone, no one could make sense of this action. So, despite Musharraf not being in the country of which they thought as the right timing; they misread the national resolve thus triggering a “COUNTER” coup within the Army, the rest is history...”
Yes sir! The rest is history. However, if I dare to disagree with you would you think my ‘narcissistic desire has seized my soul’ or that I suffer from a “below-average” mind? From where I see it, his highness, former chief of army staff General (r) Musharraf left Pakistan in a far more dismal state than it was on October 12 1999. When asked to decide between a rock and a hard place, he opted for both. Siding with the US then was for the greater good of Pakistan. When given the option of carrying on as president and possibly facing impeachment, or choosing to retire and play golf, he chose the latter. But the only unpatriotic selfish ones to choose life and freedom over the country’s well-being are Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif. Right.
Musharraf not only thought for himself but also others who could help prolong ‘himself’s’ reign on power. Enter: the NRO. An ordinance crafted by a foreign power, negotiated by the then DG ISI, implemented by the then chief of army staff that continues to make a mockery of democracy and malign politicians and the parliament that actually rejected it in the first place. That is history’s real dilemma. If you start narrating the NRO’s history from 2009, Zardari, PPP and other politicians emerge as villains, whereas if you go back and start from 2007 when this ordinance was promulgated and negotiated, the onus shifts to Musharraf and the then DG ISI.
Retired army officials expect journalists to forejudge civilians’ patriotism based on their decisions. However, a mere question regarding the strategy of the establishment deserves shunning.
Media is lauded when it grills the ‘bloody civilians’ over the slightest of mistakes they make in this placebo-governance. But when the same journalists pose questions to the powers-that-be, they are termed un-patriotic. If we are allowed to interrogate the losses of Pakistan Railways, discuss the damages incurred by PIA and expose the corruption in Steel Mills, shouldn’t we also be allowed to ask why our own army is conducting an operation in Balochistan? Why can we not question the wisdom of those who chose to use private jihadi organisations as a strategic tool? Why does questioning the establishments’ strategic decisions automatically put us on the payroll of the Jewish lobby or the CIA? What is the maximum a journalist can do? Ask questions. Regardless of how inane, the only one harmed in the process is the one who puts forth the question.
It is a fact that military establishments are powerful in many countries. But they are also answerable to the parliament, judiciary and the media. When needed, General Petraeus, Leon Penetta and McChrystal have been called before the congress and asked to explain themselves and their decisions. Mind you, these have been open hearings, not in-camera briefings.
You see, Mr Brigadier, the world is a difficult place to live in. One can’t bear authority without responsibility. If the establishment wants to maintain its holier-than-thou persona by calling the shots on decisions that drive this country, questions will be raised. And they will have to be answered – not by devout ‘fans’ of the military brass – but by the holy highnesses themselves.
PRAYER OF A PAKISTANI CITIZEN
ReplyDeleteAPPLICATION FOR REDRESSAL OF GRIEVANCES
Sir,
Most humbly it is requested that the applicant is a resident of Tehsil Allai, District Battagrm, Khayber Pukhtonwala Province, which is an underdeveloped area. The applicant belongs to a middle class family, who has toiled hard to manage my education upto the Higher Secondary School. Due to financial constraints and having no financial resources, I could not materialize my desire to purse further higher education.
Compelled by my desire for higher education and to materialize the desire of my parents to see me an highly education individual, I have approached all the important personalities of Pakistan including president of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Prime Minister, Army Chief, Chief Minister of the Province and authorities of Banazir Income Support Program, correspondence with the political leadership of Pakistan and other VIP,s but none have come to my help and I was quite dismayed by the negative attitude of all the institutions. I have been exerting my efforts for two years but it seems that my desire to get higher education will never be materialized.
Sir,
In the circumstances stated above I am once again approaching the higher authorities of Islamic Republic of Pakistan to be kind enough to take pity on me and on my parents and come forward to get me out of this unfortunate situation and help me to get admission in any College/University which imparts scientific education, so that I could continue my education. I also request that besides financing my educational expenses, I should be granted financial assistance to enable me to provide a comfortable living to my parents.
Sir,
I look forward and pray to all, who have a tender heart to kindly help my financially to continue my education so that I could equip myself with the education to become a dignified citizen of Pakistan, otherwise my desires will be curbed and I will be destined to a destitute life and unpromising future.
Thanking you.
Mobile # 0336-5590946