Mirror, Mirror ...................by Nadeem F. Paracha ( DAWN December 7th)

source: http://nadeemfparacha.wordpress.com/2008/12/07/mirror-mirror/

It was a startling experience following the antics of the Indian electronic media in the wake of the recent terrorist attacks in Mumbai.

As one Indian news channel after the other babbled across the most thrilling and sensational expressions of paranoid, anti-Pakistan clichés, I switched back to watching our own channels when a sudden realisation struck me: The Indian channels were a perfect mirror image of everything the Pakistani electronic media has been criticised for recently. And as the local channels geared up to nobly strike back at the accusations flying ever-so-liberally in the Indian media, drowned in this media-centric tit-for-tat were voices struggling to find a sane way out of the mess.

The truth is that there seems to be nothing even remotely resembling sanity in the ways and modes of both the Pakistani and Indian electronic media. Both are a product of the amoral political-economic system that thrived around the world in the last 10 years or so. It is a system glorifying a manner of consumerism that unabashedly puts everything up for sale — from chocolate bars to political and social ideologies. In the context of the TV channels, the media truly became a stage with various and distinct actors, each playing a designated role that is most saleable, but at the same time terribly hackneyed and stale.

The style of the electronic media in both the countries is almost similar: Irresponsibly loud, increasingly conspiratorial, gaudy, and highly rhetorical. And even though the differences are few, they are stark. For example, in the face of a terrorist attack, the Pakistani electronic media will at once take a staunch anti-government line, spiced up with populist anti-US taunts and assorted jabbering that is at best a chaotic crisscross between aggressive Islamist posturing and retro-socialist sloganeering, all done in well-lit TV studios and over beeping telephone lines.

In India, the electronic media in the event of a deadly terrorist act does the opposite. It gets right behind the government and the state and lavishly expounds upon and expands, like an over-the-top Bollywood script, whatever excuses and explanations the government has to provide. Pakistan gets the ceremonial beating. It is black to India’s white, as simple as that.

Now, this is not to suggest that the paranoia on both sides of the border does not have any factual ground. Both the countries have been known to play clandestine games against each other, but it is also true that most of the recent problems they have been facing regarding religious extremism and violence (both Islamic and Hindu), are largely of their own making.

Interestingly, more than its Indian counterpart, Pakistani governments and the state in the last few years have been positively willing to accept the above scenario. It will look at its own Frankenstein monsters in the north and rue its history of sponsoring jihadi outfits in the past to explain the terrorism it is facing today. The Indian government and the state, on the other hand, still don’t seem to shed that old Cold War-era habit of pointing the finger at its “neighbours.”

In both cases, however, the now widespread electronic media in India and Pakistan have ended up playing a rather disastrous role.

In Pakistan this media viciously attacks any Pakistani government that is ready to blame in-bred extremism for the violence that the country is facing. It will mock such a government as being a “US stooge,” animatedly point fingers at the Indian embassies across the Afghan-Pakistan border, and paint an awkwardly sympathetic picture of the extremists.

In India, on the other end, the electronic media joyfully jumps the gun and starts accusing Pakistan even before the Indian government does, intricately putting populist pressure on the government to do so at once, even if the government may be wanting to keep the anti-Pakistan whining somewhat pragmatic and less aggressive.

The electronic media in both India and Pakistan simply reflects the paranoia and politics of a class of people that became an important factor in the economics of consumerism flourishing in the region over the last decade. This is the urban middle-class that enjoyed relative prosperity between the end of the Cold War in 1991 and the current global economic collapse. The years between these two events saw them acquiring a sudden, important economic status as they became central ideological and socio-economic players in ways of post-Cold-War economics that glorified consumerism and attached it with concepts like ‘freedom, democracy and progress’.

This bubble-like prosperity and an overstated feeling of economic and political empowerment that this class of urbanites felt also elevated them as becoming the economic and conceptual drivers of the new-found electronic media boom in India and Pakistan. But the irony is that this bubbled prosperity did not make them more liberal, egalitarian, wise or progressive. Instead, it made them feel a lot more insecure, perhaps fearing that their new-found prosperity was in danger of being undermined and compromised by opposing ideologies which they now thought had kept the urban middle-classes in both the countries in an economic and political limbo between the lower and upper classes. This insecurity coupled with the narcissism that is an inherent plank of consumerism has turned this class into becoming myopic and reactive. In both the countries they have become colourful and loud bundles of contradictions, quite like the two countries’ electronic media.

For example, in India, one of the biggest voting banks of the right-wing Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) comprises the Indian middle-class urbanites. They are “modern,” “liberal,” “open,” and yet one of the most responsive classes to anything smacking of modern Hindu fanaticism, anti-Pakistan rhetoric and post-Cold-War Indian conservatism. They also happen to be the class to which much of the advertising on Indian TV channels is targeted, and it is also the members of this class who are the brain and ego behind the content that one comes across on these channels.

The same is the case in Pakistan. This class went through similar economic metamorphosis, and the so-called economic empowerment did not necessarily turn it into a progressive batch. On the contrary, this class’s inherent political conservatism was only further fattened, but in an unusual and contradicting manner. Because even though the Pakistani urban middle-class easily fell for all the trappings of modern consumerism and economics, the narcissism factor saw them collapse inwards and qualify their self-centeredness by either rediscovering Islam (consequently believing to become wise enough to preach it too), or suddenly become fond of a rhetorical mixture of political Islam, token anti-Americanism, humane capitalism, and democracy. These are expressed as a constant criticism of the government and state institutions but the alternatives to bad governance, stooge-like behaviour and corruption end up sounding like hot air that has more to do with the reactive antics of consumerism, and animated revolutionary drawing-room/studio posturing than anything a little less Utopian, airy and more particle.

The electronic media in both India and Pakistan is a culmination of what the urban middle-class in these countries now stand for. And since there is now also more than a hint of self-righteousness in this class, one should not be surprised to note that the electronic media is entirely incapable of facing or indulging in the kind of serious self-analysis and criticism it is badly in need of.

Processing news into movies

THE Indian film industry is said to be the biggest in the world in terms of annual output of movies. It churns out 900 films each year. An international Bollywood research study on the preferences of an average Indian moviegoer was recently conducted by Amanda Sodhi of Maryland University.

It revealed that an Indian watches a minimum of three to four new movies every month. No doubt an average Indian looks for drama in every aspect of life. And to cater to that insatiable palate for sensationalism, the Indian news media, especially TV, twists any noteworthy item into a short fiction film to keep that quasi-reality intact.

The Mumbai terror attacks were played out like a movie to the people who sat glued to the tube to witness the unfolding drama. Twists and turns abound, the short film became an epic saga with a running time of 60 hours. Of course you cannot discount the stellar cast lead by the Indian security agencies, namely the National Security Guards that wanted to enjoy its debut starring role and did everything possible to prolong the dramatics even if it meant hostages losing lives!

They wouldn’t let go of their moment of glory for nothing. Have you ever seen commanders of different units coming on TV and giving comments on an ongoing operation? The commander of the Black Cats crack unit couldn’t be discouraged as he appeared in full garb, with a black beret on top, dark shades, and a sinister black bandana to cover most of his face.

He spoke to the media in elaborate detail. The NSG commander followed the spotlight as soon it came on! And he wouldn’t leave it alone for three days and three nights. Oh! How I wished the Indian authorities would send in Sunny Deol…..he would have annihilated the ‘ghus-baithiyas’ in a matter of minutes…. 90 minutes at the most, with some songs thrown in as well.

NADEEM WARIS
Karachi

DAWN - Letters; December 08, 2008

a very interesting letter :)

10 lessons all Pakistanis must learn

By Hassan Baig from LUMS.

"Mulk khud hi chalta rehay ga" (approximate translation: the country doesn't need our contribution to thrive) is a sentence many Pakistanis are prone to saying. I confess that till a few years ago, I myself was confident of this misleading notion. Misleading and dangerous - especially in today's volatile climate. As Pakistanis, it is imperative that we come to terms with the fact that no heavenly Manna will alleviate our country's plight. The job rests squarely on our own shoulders; with the destiny of a whole nation tethered to our will and to the execution of that will. And so as the clock ticks and the prophets of doom raise a foreboding murmur from East to West, it is high time for us to learn some crucial lessons. Lessons without which our collective slumber will only deepen:

1) Extremism always overcomes moderation. History is fraught with examples of moderate majorities ruled and controlled by extremist minorities. Therefore unless we are extreme in our moderation, our endeavor - any endeavor - is doomed to be highjacked by powers which know more meticulous passion. From the radicalized Islamic cleric who preaches bigotry and hatred to the Neoconservative-backed Christian televangelist who sermonizes the urgency of preparing for an ethnic genocide pithily called Armageddon, we today live in an increasingly polarized world. And since Pakistan exists on the very fault-lines of this burgeoning conflict, our problems are exacerbated. Regardless of what stance we take or which side we pick, our country will remain on the receiving end for the foreseeable future. And regardless of how hastily we disregard conspiracy theories, the extreme forces on all sides will continue to augment their belief systems with hybrid religiopolitical prophecies. Prophecies which have a way of snowballing into self-fulfilment. Therefore it is critical that we take our moderate stance to be more of a proactive doctrine rather than apolitical aloofness. Our very existence depends on it.

2) Microanalysis never gives the complete picture. The details are undoubtedly important when comprehending any system. But often overlooked is the effort to mull over the big-picture such details contribute to – roughly the equivalent of what Sir Dr. Allama Muhammad Iqbal referred to as tadabbur in his reformist discourse. As denizens of a land increasingly rife with numerous challenges, we simply cannot afford intellectual naiveté. Notwithstanding esoteric themes, we consistently fall short of sensibly determining atleast the more obvious big-picture connections in unfolding narratives. This is utter mediocrity. Whereas some would mistake this for a failure of ability – this is infact predominantly a display of negligent disinterest; of an irresponsible, desensitized populace.

Countless times we have allowed ourselves to fall for the same old tricks. A glaring contemporary example is the myth of Pakistan's democratically elected government we all seem to have digested without any modicum of reflection. Ostensibly, the country voted out the dictator and brought in a government ‘for the people by the people’. But consider the macro picture: currently the seat of political power is the Office of the President - a position where the current incumbent's name was never advertised on the ballot on Election Day, a position where the current incumbent affected the people's voting decision by publicly disavowing any interest in the Presidentship on and before election day, a position which still exercises the uber-powerful, dictatorial Article 58 2(b). In form, we indeed have a democratic set-up in place. But in substance?

Now confessedly this example is a soft and convenient target. Moreover even had most Pakistanis successfully connected the dots, demands for a true democratic set up would be a low priority given more daunting issues the country is currently facing. But it's one of the more visible examples and is relatively fresh in memory - overall an effective illustrative point. Furthermore it helps emphasize the need for greater intellectual involvement on our part. Unless we start to discern between real enemies and contrived ones, manipulation of us and our coming generations by exploitative elements both internal and external will continue to be a dominant theme in the national narrative. That is no future to look forward to.

3) Moral relativism is a conduit to absolute corruption. Those who start compromising on principles – even in trivial issues – end up going all the way. A textbook example is that of our previous President: By the end of his regime, General Pervez Musharraf was not the man he was when he first usurped the seat of Pakistan's government. Over time as his political age advanced, he underwent a staged metamorphosis: from an amateur idealist, to a practitioner of temperate Realpolitik, and then finally to an outright Machiavellian Prince. This is the classic lifecycle of corruption; the philosophy that principles are subservient to actions instead of it being the other way around. We must learn once and for all that those who have the proverbial ‘crack in the armor’ inevitably succumb; that their demise is a certainty.

Now realistically speaking it is true that there is no absolute escape from moral relativism, but we atleast need to be skeptical of the more blatant practitioners of this philosophy. We all know who they are. Too many times we have fallen for those who claim that they have been reformed; too many times we have made choices based on the ‘lesser of two evils’. This is folly because it reinforces the longevity of the corrupt by repetitively giving them second chances through the people’s misplaced, gullible trust. Until and unless we explicitly reject this opportunism, our polity will remain enslaved by the puppet-masters.

4) Morality is a myth in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Ethnocentric self-righteousness robs us of our ability to be constructively self-critical and stems societal improvement. Unless we teach our progeny the truth about the decrepit moral standards prevalent in the country and pass on a ‘to-do’ list of sorts; we would have failed in parenting responsible future citizens. We have all witnessed how the various religious movements burn CD shops, dynamite girl schools and dismantle barber boutiques without raising an eyebrow at the greater tyranny of the socio-political system. We have personally seen principled stands getting drowned in derision; the politics of necessity being proclaimed king. We have beheld firsthand justice being abused by megalomania; injustice becoming the law. This is not a lesson to be forgotten or concealed.

5) Don't believe everything you see in the media (self-explanatory)

6) But don't become too paranoid either: empathy and objectivity are seminal in asymptotically approaching the truth. Currently as it stands in Pakistan, we seldom 'think things through', and instead prefer to latch on to the first and most convenient explanation the social circle around us resonates with. This is futile practice. Futile because herd mentality is seldom rational, is borne of fear and dread, and invariably leads to the sort of exploitable mass-hysteria we have witnessed many times over circa 9/11. Make no mistake about it - by abandoning empathy and objectivity, we give up our very freedom of thought and become marionettes to higher interests. In a world of pervasive fear today, Pakistan can chart the course of its destiny better if the collective remains independently thoughtful.

7) Our destinies are tied to Pakistan, to our ethnicity, and to our religion. In the increasingly divisive world of today, individual allegiances are being outdone by overarching stereotypes. In other words, no matter what shade my skin may be, what dialect or accent I speak in or what my beliefs about God may be, I will always be perceived as a Pakistani Muslim by the world at large. And thus, my fate is inescapable from that of Pakistan. So for example if this country is torn asunder due to civil-war brought on by geopolitical strife, I will invariably be perceived as a refugee in the world. Thereafter I can achieve the American dream, or move in international social circles, or even perfectly synchronize my habits with Western norms - I can do all that and I'll still be a refugee. Pakistan's imprint echoes in my very existence; in all of us. We can live our life denying this fact and bury our head in the sand. Or we can accept it, embrace it and let it influence our priorities. How we choose our greater allegiance today will shape our collective, intertwined destiny.

8) The onus for reforming the system is on the middle classes. That is, the onus is on people like you and me. We are the potential agents of change. And thus by implication, we are also blameworthy for allowing the system to remain broken, for not wanting to 'get our hands dirty', for being the silent, apathetic onlookers. The moneyed elite are not to blame – they adhere to their characteristic decadence and nonchalance; they do precisely what they're expected to do. Corrupt politicians are not to blame – a thief knows little more than the art of thievery. Likewise, neither the military's top brass, and nor the have-nots of Pakistan are culpable. They all play their designated roles in manners they ought to. This leaves the middle and upper-middle classes - essentially people like you and me. Us. We are the true architects of revolutionary change. For we are the only societal segment in this country which is situated at the confluence of a moral code which may be disillusioned but still partly intact, a vision which is alienated but still somewhat patriotic and an agency which is disoriented but still adequately resourceful. In short we are far from perfect, but we are the only messiahs Pakistan can realistically count on. There is absolutely no one else. This lesson is perhaps the most consequential one we have to learn.

9) Incremental change is not a bad option. Activism through small, comfortable increments is not an impractical way of approaching the paradigm of change. That is, even small steps help since at any one time atomic constituents are more solvable than the complex whole. Hence we must not abhor atomizing issues and then indulging in micro-activism – it is ok if how one contributes does not have immediately noticeable repercussions.

I have encountered many Pakistanis who cite their inability to have a substantial, resounding impact as the main driving force behind their evident indifference to the country's woes. To all those who espouse this view, I say that though I can empathize with your sense of demoralization, I simply cannot condone the rationale for such inaction. For it is undeniable that some progress is better than no progress; that going from 100 to 101 is a better deal than staying put; that the smallest gestures help too. If all of us today - the 140 million plus of us no less – individually contemplate the smallest, tiniest way we can contribute to Pakistan's socioeconomic betterment and act on it, is there any doubt that the country will not change overnight in one big rush of altruistic activism? Now this is ofcourse an unrealistic, rhetorical example - but it is thematic of the power of incremental change. A change easy to accomplish with the results snowballing as more people buy into the paradigm. In short we must not overlook this option; rather it is sensible to include it as an ally in our portfolio of loftier ambitions.

10) Lastly, Pakistan can shine. No really; this is not just talk. If you don't know where to start, there's a lot of help around. And not to mention many examples to take inspiration from. Did you know that Pakistan possesses the technological knowhow to manufacture drones indigenously[i]? Or that one of the most highly regarded applications available in Apple's iPhone App Store today is of Pakistani[ii] origin? Or that 27 Pakistani scientists[iii] are scheduled to work on CERN's Large Hadron Collider (the 'Big Bang' experiment machine)? Or that a Pakistani Venture Capitalist has been placed in the top 10[iv] in Forbes magazine's worldwide annual VC ranking?

These are just a few inspirational stories among a plethora of real-world anecdotes and accomplishments with a quintessentially Pakistani stamp on them. For all that is made out to be defective about this country, there are flashes of brilliance just waiting to be given the opportunity to show themselves in their true splendor to the realms; to spread out and envelope the gloom infesting our polity. We just need to get rid of the “Mulk khud hi chalta rehay ga” approach. And fortunately, this is not as hard as it sounds. There are numerous small but meaningful ways in which we can make a personal contribution. Some suggestions are:

• Make yourself heard. Become involved, for your continued silence is really an endorsement of the status quo. Reject what must be rejected, condemn that what is condemnable, endorse and encourage where merited. And do not be fooled into thinking that this is an ambitious proposition: increasing accessibility to the information superhighway has made it easier for any individual to become part of the public discourse. There are numerous Pakistani internet blogs and forums where you can voice your opinions and contribute in your own way to mold the national spirit for a brighter future. And you do not necessarily have to write articles – blogs traditionally invite one-liner comments as well. It is the same as, if not easier than, writing a text message on your cell phone.
• Brainstorm in public to seed ideas and to inspire. Many people talk about the way the world should be, but much less understand how to get there. If you do have thought-provoking ideas, then there is nothing more fruitful than exposing your design – through, say, the internet – to the collective intellect for it to dissect it, understand it, polish it if necessary and support it when satisfied. Also remember that your proposed solutions do not have to be comprehensive – for many issues simply cannot be solved bottom-up[v] and the burden has to be placed on the unlikely possibility of a non-elitist, well-educated visionary coming along and dominating our political scene in the future. But your ideas can always ameliorate problems; lessen their severity so to speak. It is imperative that such brainstorming enters our public discourse – the resulting crosspollination is what will slowly and steadily alter the course of our destiny.
• Become an activist through inaction (can’t get easier than this). Every populace has its own share of idealists and lunatics. Ones who think the impossible is possible, the unrealistic is realistic and that conventional wisdom is unwise. And too often people succumb to the temptation of vociferously chastising such individuals; of telling them how futile their beliefs are; of how the system will crush their hopes. Now during my days at LUMS, a Groucho Marx quotation used to do the rounds quite often: “Blessed are the cracked ones, for they shall let in the light”. Just let the lunatics be no matter how imbecilic[vi] their ideas are. Let them have their shot at change. Next time you meet the idealist, unreasonably optimistic seedling who thinks he or she can change the world, be lazy and do not make the effort go negative on them.

All of the suggestions above are very small starts confessedly. But by no means is such a start inconsequential. Through the build-up of momentum, confidence to tackle bigger beasts can evolve and we can then trailblaze our way to that true destiny envisioned for Pakistan by Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah. This is our moment; let’s seize it. Let’s get going.

---

[i] http://www.janes.com/news/defence/air/jdw/jdw081125_1_n.shtml

[ii] http://www.jugaari.com/reviews.php

[iii] http://techlahore.wordpress.com/2008/09/16/27-pakistani-scientists-working-on-cerns-lhc-big-bang-experiments/

[iv] http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/99/biz_08midas_Asad-Jamal_CIBC.html

[v] Take this simplistically formulated example: India has roughly 8000 universities for its 1 billion people (approximately one university for every 125,000 persons). Pakistan has around 120 for its 140 million (one university for every 1.2 million persons). Assuming this level stays constant (unrealistic assumption), simple math shows we need 1000 more universities to attain parity. That is a massive task. And therefore the kind of fiscal muscle required to pull it off necessitates active government involvement.

[vi] http://www.pakspectator.com/ideas-to-save-pakistan/

Some Sayings/Statements of a very 'Wise' Guy !!!

بعض صحافیوں کو سوائے بکواس کے کوئی کام نہیں۔

قاضی حسین احمد پاگل ہیں انہیں معائنہ کروانا چاہئے۔

یہ بلوچستان والے کیا سمجھتے ہیں۔ یہ سن ستر نہیں ہے کہ پہاڑوں پر چڑھ گئے۔ ان کے سر پر ایسی چیز لگے گی کہ پتہ بھی نہیں چلے گا کہ کہاں سے آئی۔

یہ آپ نے سوال کیا ہے۔۔۔۔۔ لگتا ہے آپ کا تعلق سندھ سے ہے۔ سندھ والے ہی اکثر ایسے سوال کرتے ہیں۔

مجھے پتہ ہے کیا ہوتا ہے۔۔۔۔ کئی خواتین اس لئے ریپ ہونے کا شور مچاتی ہیں کہ انہیں کینیڈا یا کسی اور ملک کا ویزا مل جائے۔

افتخار چوہدری کی بات چھوڑیں جی ۔۔۔ وہ ایک نااہل اور کرپٹ شخص ہیں۔

میں ایک فوجی ہوں جو جمہوریت اور انسانی حقوق پر پختہ یقین رکھتا ہے۔

یہ مغرب والے فروغ جمہوریت اور انسانی حقوق کے جنون میں مبتلا نہ ہوں۔ ہمیں ان کے معیارات تک پہنچنے میں وقت لگے گا۔

چند سابق فوجیوں کی تنقید سے کوئی فرق نہیں پڑتا۔ یہ غیر اہم لوگ ہیں۔

یہ جو یہاں بیٹھ کر پاکستان اور حکومت پر الزام تراشی کرتے ہیں۔ انہیں روکنا ہوگا۔ بلکہ اگر ان جیسوں کو دو تین ٹکا دیں تو اچھا ہوگا۔

I am sure that i dont have to 'expose' the 'wise' guy ... because he is already exposed to everyone. He is more insane than he looks ... because if he had a little bit of grace then he would have gone by now ... but he didn't. What do you say on these 'Golden quotes' ? If i missed some of the 'Golden Quotes' then pardon me ... and add them into the comment area :)

Manufacturing ‘truths’

By: Hajrah Mumtaz

Dr Paul Joseph Goebbels, Minister for Public Enlightenment and Propaganda under Adolf Hitler’s Nationalist Socialist regime, said:

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

The words hold relevance for Pakistan today. After a turbulent year that in itself augured ill for the country’s future, came the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. Just over a week later, the government is engaged in a bitter blame game in the attempt to deflect responsibility everywhere but upon its own minions and shadowy agencies. As the dust slowly settles, some civilian politicians have fallen towards the relative front and this has resulted in a citizenry divided: where some people are referring with disgust to the politicians’ past reputations and practices, others are reacting sympathetically.

By way of background noise, references made by politicians both in the King’s Party and out of it are gnawing away at the idea of the federation and are hardening provincial divides. At the same time, the citizenry is angrily debating whether democracy is at all relevant to Pakistan’s needs since earlier democratic governments fell far short of standards.

In these bleak times, people are taking sides on the basis of what they know to be true. Depending on their sympathies, for example, some of us ‘know’ that X, Y or Z was corrupt or inefficient, while others ‘know’ that A, B and C acted out of the best intentions. We ‘know’ this because we read it in the newspapers, saw it on television, heard it from inside sources and wagged our heads in agreement during drawing room conversations.

Goebbels’ words indicate that what we ‘know’ may not necessarily be the ‘truth’ — if, indeed, any such animal exists — and may in fact be the result of a vast flood of propaganda and lies that have been insisted upon for so long that they have become the truth.

As Herman and Chomsky pointed out in Manufacturing Consent, state authorities or governments employ indoctrination techniques and propaganda to bolster support for their policies. Significantly, the crux of the book is how the media, on purpose or unwittingly, become the tool through which the lies and half-truths are disseminated.

The military has been in power in Pakistan for most of the country’s 60-year history and shows no indication of ever wanting to give it up. The assertions that certain extra-constitutional steps were “in the best interests of the country” must be viewed in this light. At the same time, the reputations of a number of politicians and parties must also be revisited with this knowledge.

Most of us ‘know’ that our democratic governments were tainted by institutionalised corruption on a massive scale, because this is what we have been repeatedly told for the past eight years in particular, and over decades in general. (By the same token, I wonder, do we ‘know’ that non-democratic governments were squeaky clean? Or is that just not talked about?)

It is worth examining who was doing the telling, and who was in power long enough to repeat the same shady ‘truths’ over and over again. Could this government be in the business of manufacturing such ‘truths’? It is entirely possible that our ‘knowledge’ is the result of a massive propaganda machine that has consistently run defamation and character assassination campaigns against civilian political leaders. Over the years, little proof has been offered by way of explanation while damning such politicians.

True, ample evidence of maladministration and corruption has been presented by the press. Little of this evidence, however, has been the result of independent investigative journalism. Most of the news reports upon the actions or statements of others. For example, when the press reports the dismissal of a government under charges of corruption or maladministration, the allegation is being levelled by the individual or institution doing the dismissing, not the press itself. Furthermore, such allegations are never proved or disproved through a credible trial. And what’s more, even if the press raised suspicions of misrule through solid investigative journalism, it would still be up to the courts to pronounce upon the veracity of the allegations.

Ironically, it was also Goebbels who wrote:

“Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play.”

The point is not whether our politicians are blameless, but whether we have been offered any credible proof that they are not. Sadly, the idea of being innocent until proved guilty is not in evidence in Pakistan and any hope for it was stamped out with the dismissal of independent-minded judges.

The Big Lie theory, as such methods of indoctrination have been referred to, is a propaganda technique first defined by Hitler in Mien Kampf as a lie so “colossal” that no one would be able to believe that someone “could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.” While Hitler used this theory with reference to his view of Judaism, it is amply in evidence in Pakistan today. We have, after all, a government audacious enough to first present a theory as ludicrous as a murderous sun-roof handle, and then admit that the statement was made without taking all evidence into account. Fortuitously, in this case there was hard evidence to disprove the government’s claim otherwise it may easily have gone down in the annals of history.

Furthermore, it is worth pondering the etymology of the word ‘media’. It is the plural for ‘medium’, which since the early 17th century has been used in the context of an ‘intermediate agency’ and carries the additional meaning of ‘medium of communication.’ In this broader sense, the media include not only the formal agencies that disseminate information and ideas — newspapers, television etc — but also the informal systems through which, generally speaking, each of us knows what he knows. These informal systems are the verbal avenues for the exchange of ideas, such as debate, discussion and even rumour or gossip, since these too are amongst the streams of information that together constitute the well of knowledge available to any individual.

Such informal streams of the media can be and are extensively used by Pakistan’s well-connected, entrenched and institutionalised propaganda machine. The power of the media in terms of shaping the perspectives and perceptions of individuals is not only immense but in terms of the informal media, also truly frightening because of its nebulous nature.

The thinking person must ask himself, “How do I know what I know, and how do I know whether it is true?”

Post-script:

“To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed . . .”

— George Orwell, 1984.

— hmumtaz@dawn.com

Blogged with Flock