Siachen Tragedy: Prioritizing the News

This is a post about the heart-rending tragedy that struck on the Siachen Glacier early Saturday morning, which has buried - and in all likely probability killed - at least 135 people in one of the biggest avalanches ever to strike Pakistan. The latest estimates say all 124 soldiers stationed at the battalion headquarters in the Gayari sector and some 11-14 civilian support staff are now buried somewhere underneath the avalanche of snow, stone and dirt, said to be over-a-kilometre-wide and up to 80 feet deep.

But this post is not about the futility of maintaining armed forces in such inhospitable terrain (where more soldiers have died from the natural conditions than actual fighting), nor about the ridiculous expenditure this quarter-of-a-century-long deployment imposes on both Pakistan and India whose people still die from hunger, malnutrition, lack of access to clean water and easily treatable diseases. It could well be, but that's become almost a cliche and enough commentators will be focusing on just that. No, I want to focus on the shocking way this tragedy was covered by Pakistan's electronic media.

The following are the headlines from the 9pm bulletin on Geo News from Saturday 7th April 2012. Notice something?




As you can see, the news item about more than 100 Pakistanis having possibly perished was tucked away in fourth priority, behind the usual war of words between the PPP and the PMLN, the preps in India for President Zardari's 'private' visit to the Ajmer shrine and COAS Gen Kayani's banal statement about not letting counter-insurgency operations detract from 'normal' war planning. Sandwiched between these stories and other  news items about a motorbike stunt show, a transvestite wedding and 'Arab' dance on Karachi's food street, you could be almost forgiven for thinking the death of so many citizens of Pakistan was no big deal.

Keep in mind that the avalanche took place at 6 am on Saturday morning. I first saw the news in the 2 pm bulletin (it could have appeared earlier, I am not sure). And I remember feeling incredulous that even then the story was dealt with in such cavalier fashion. The entire day, it never received any higher priority than the third, fourth or fifth top story. It was only at 10.30 pm, when the armed forces' Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) department issued a statement detailing the specifics of the catastrophe that, suddenly, the news was turned into 'Breaking News' and finally entered the top slot of news bulletins.

Now, in any country in the world, such a natural disaster, especially one in which over 100 of its citizens had perished or even been trapped, would have or should have made the top story. Forget issues of nationalism, this would be a top story for any news media anywhere in the world. For a media that thrives on human interest stories, the idea that such a huge number of people were buried alive under a wall of snow inherently calls out for top billing. The number of lives directly touched by this tragedy - from family, relations, friends - in itself numbers in the tens of thousands. All the next day's papers, quite rightly, gave the story the main headline.

So what happened with Pakistan's television channels? (Although I have chosen to highlight Geo News here as the largest, by far, of the private media channels, I am told the other channels were similar in their handling of the story.) The only two possibilities are that either the news editors are completely incompetent in their judgement of news-worthiness, or that it was, more likely, pressure from the army that forced them to play down the story the whole day. And I will submit that in the case of the latter, the news editors and their channel's owners have displayed that they are equally incompetent in their judgement.

It is important to keep in mind a couple of things. One, that it was not that the story had not reached the news channels because of the remote location; they were aware of the parameters of the disaster at least by 2pm and were running the story, just not in the spot it deserved. Two, that it is highly, highly improbable that channels that run even the most mundane localized political and crime stories ad nauseam in their bulletins suddenly discovered the value of not 'sensationalizing' such a genuinely 'big' story. Even the argument that time was needed to inform the families of the potential victims does not hold any weight, since anyone whose loved one was deployed at Siachen would already have become aware of the disaster from the news that was running through the day. The only thing the down-playing of the news might have achieved is their resentment that their loved ones' lives were not worth more serious concern.

If channel heads and news editors cannot turn down the silly and unwarranted pressure of the army (if indeed it was this that decided the news priority and not simple incompetence) to play down what is, for any half-wit journalist, a blatantly obvious major story, if they really cannot stand up for their own news sense on such a non-controversial matter, they really should stop tooting the horn about themselves as the "independent media."

The Day After

I had hoped to put up this image which one of our Twitter friends (don't remember which one) had pointed us to, after a Pakistan win in yesterday's semi-final. But I think it's more appropriate than ever now. (Incidentally, I do not know who made it but if the designer is reading this and would like credit, let us know and we will credit you.)

Afridi: The Renaissance Man (Design: Komail Naqvi)

So, yes, India played far better than us on the day and deserved to win the match. But as, thankfully, most people in Pakistan have recalled, nobody, including myself, gave the Pakistan team much chance of even getting this far before the World Cup began. And for this, Shahid Afridi, the captain, and the team deserves our respect. Generally, despite the one major blip against New Zealand (for which we'll forever be grateful to Kamran Akmal), Pakistan played far beyond expectations and seemed, after a long, long, time, to be a united team.

Of course, it hurts to lose, especially to arch-rivals India, and especially after seemingly having the game within our grasp, but there is no shame. Okay, there should be shame about dropping a batsman like Tendulkar four bloody times, but you know what I mean. Afridi made good on his pre-World Cup promise of reaching at least the semis and for this we should celebrate and give the team its due. It's actually very heartening to see that most people, including the media, have taken the defeat in the spirit in which it should be taken. There should be introspection within the team (particularly about Kamran Akmal's future) but for once, hopefully, we will be able to use this a springboard for improvements for the future rather than nihilistic destruction.

I don't want to get into the details of the cricketing issues that surfaced in this match (others have already done so in fair detail) but I did have a couple of other thoughts about non-cricketing issues after the match which I would like to share.

1. Can we, like, get a list of all those astrologers, psychics, numerologists and "astropalmists" who predicted a Pakistan victory? You know, just so we know who to avoid? And at the very least, can the media stop referring to them before any big event? (Geo, to its credit, did take the lead on this, running a mocking package about them, including its own resident astrologist known as 'Mamoon', this morning.)

2. I don't wish to sound cruel (and animal-lovers please note, this is merely in jest) but as far as that unproven story about the Shiv Sena / predictions-vendor allegedly killing the parrot who predicted a Pakistan victory in Bombay, wouldn't you say they were sort of right in retiring the parrot? I mean I would never support the killing of any poor animal for such indiscretions but the parrot had obviously lost it. Moreover, the parrot in Karachi who also predicted a Pakistan victory, can you blame him/her after s/he'd heard about what supposedly happened in Bombay?

3. I hope it puts to rest all those tawdry (and frankly done one too many times) jokes about the jawaan Sheila, the badnaam Munni and the Pathan Afridi. Really. Please stop now.

4. If any credible story comes out about someone actually having bet on Tendulkar being dropped more than three times, I will personally ask Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry to take suo moto notice. Beyond that, let's please not bring in claims of match-fixing this time. One team had to lose.

5. The one definite and huge down-side to the loss is of course seeing the idiotic brigade - Ansar Abbasi et al - back in business. (Even in supposed empathy with Afridi, he must bring up Raymond Davis.) It was good while it lasted but as they say on Twitter, FML!

6. Finally, to all those 'cricket-liberals' scaring us about the potential for doom and gloom because of the fervour around the match, I hope you realize the world did not end, no nuclear missiles were launched, and amazingly there was even no bad blood on the field. You know why? Because most people do take it as a game even if they are jumping up and down, putting war-paint on their faces and mocking their sporting rivals.

Good luck to both India and Sri Lanka for the final!


: : : UPDATE : : :

Actually there was one more thing I thought about which I forgot to put down: Where is Poonam Panday?

The Mohali Lead-up FacePalms

It's usually at times like these that I heave a sigh of relief that one does not have easy access to Indian news television channels in Pakistan. Because, really, I think adding them to the mix of frequent absurdity that Pakistan's news channels are capable of would be just too much to bear.

Have a gander at the following two clips. The first is from India TV which claims it has "earned a repute [sic] of credible reporting, courage, espousal of public interest and its [sic] unmatched delivery which is of a [sic] great value to all stakeholders." I truly do not know where to begin on this one. I suppose if one put intellectual absurdity mixed with an utter lack of knowledge and cricketing ignorance into a blender, added a cup of whacked out sensationalism with generous doses of bhang, you could, ostensibly arrive at something tasting like this 'report.'





The second clip is from a channel called CNEB, which, believe it or not, is short for Complete News and Entertainment Broadcast and which, according to its website, thinks Qamaruzzaman Kaira is the 'Home Minister of Pakistan.' It has this to say about itself:

"Complete News & Entertainment Broadcast Pvt. Ltd. (CNEB) has launched its 24 x 7 Infotainment Television Channel in May 2008 with the vision of its Group Chairman Shri H. S. Sran, that hordes of channels has come up and large numbers are waiting for the permission from Ministry of Information & Broadcasting; only few survive because as per the industry sources, the viewers stick to the channels which are showing programs with a difference."

Um.... yeah, whatever, dude. Here's how they bring a difference:




Can we collectively say 'preparing the ground for a whining'? I mean, ok, an alleged bookie hanging out with the team is news in itself (if true, it should be probed by the Anti-Corruption Unit of the ICC shouldn't it?) but how is billions being bet on a match and the mere presence of a suspicious character translate automatically into confirmation of a fix? CNEB of course raises questions about the match by blaming the punters ("sattaybaaz"). But, er, wouldn't the team - or certainly some members of the team - have to be involved in a fix? How come CNEB never points that out?

Incidentally, I have heard the same argument, about the match allegedly being fixed, from people in Pakistan - except that in our versions, it's Pakistan that's going to lose. FFS! Get over yourselves folks. As if either India or Pakistan can never lose unless some behind-the-scenes hanky panky is involved. In our media's defence, at least we didn't put such a wildly speculative (and frankly, rondhoo) preemptive story on our mainstream channels. Yet. Note to Pakistani TV channels: do NOT attempt to replicate!


Tailpiece: At the other end of the spectrum are the 'cricket-liberals', who in the midst of the (justified) hysteria about the Mother Of All Matches, are going around beatifically pontificating about cricket diplomacy, cricket for peace and the win-win scenario for South Asia (whatever that is). Basically, people who probably think Umar Gul and Zaheer Khan or Virender Sehwag and Misbahul Haq are in the same league, and really don't care that much about cricket or their national teams. Ahmer Naqvi and Masuud Qazi have a hilarious post up on Clear Cricket to inform them about the Prescribed Etiquettes and Attitudes for TGME (The Greatest Match Ever). Do have a look.

The Permutations of Cricketing Masochism

I had vowed at some point in Pakistan's dismal recent cricketing history not to write on cricket again. Actually I had probably vowed not to watch cricket again as well. But of course I knew even then that I was lying to myself. There is something inherently masochistic in a Pakistan cricket fan that keeps her/him coming back, even at the almost certain risk of heart-break, social ostracization from polite company and medical complications such as untenably high blood pressure. And then along comes the World Cup and Pakistan, despite all their quirks and Kamran Akmal, do scrape through to the quarter-finals.

So there you have it. What can you do?

Of course, getting through to the knock-out stage is only the first part of the battle and, as every cricket-mad enthusiast in Pakistan will affirm, the bigger question on everyone's mind is who we will end up playing in the quarterfinals. The consensus seems to be that we would not like to meet India in the quarters. Some claim this is because they would not like to see the Mother Of All cricket battles take place so early in the competition. Pakistan's skipper Shahid Afridi claims this is because he would rather NOT play the quarters in India with its fiercely partisan crowd, which would be the case if Pakistan meet India at that stage. But of course, mostly it's because Pakistan has never won against India in previous World Cups and the memory of the Bangalore quarterfinals against India in 1996 still haunts us.

Well, the simple (by which I mean complicated) fact of the matter is that, as the points table is placed at the moment, an India-Pakistan can only be definitely avoided if a certain combination of results happen. Like all fellow masochists and failed mathematicians, I have wasted quite a bit of time on working out the probable permutations. And so I thought I might as well share them with everyone.

Here is the points table as it stands tonight (March 14):
(NRR = Net Run Rate)


Group A:

New Zealand is on top with 8 points, 4 wins, NRR of +1.957 with 1 match to play against Sri Lanka
Pakistan is second with 8 points, 4 wins, NRR of +0.729 with 1 match to play against Australia
Sri Lanka is third with 7 points, 3 wins, NRR of +2.705 with 1 match to play against New Zealand
Australia is fourth with 7 points, 3 wins, NRR of +1.645 with 2 matches to play against Canada and Pakistan
Zimbabwe, Canada and Kenya are out of the quarterfinals


Group B:

India is on top with 7 points, 3 wins, NRR of +0.768 with 1 match to play against West Indies
West Indies is second with 6 points, 3 wins, NRR of +2.206 with 2 matches to play against England and India
South Africa is third with 6 points, 3 wins, NRR of +1.352 with 2 matches to play against Ireland and Bangladesh
Bangladesh is fourth with 6 points, 3 wins, NRR of -0.765 with 1 match to play against South Africa
England is fifth with 5 points, 2 wins, NRR of +0.013 with 1 match to play against West Indies
Ireland is sixth with 2 points, 1 win, NRR of -0.444 with 2 matches to play against South Africa and Netherlands
Netherland is out of the quarterfinals


Now, as far as Group A is concerned, it is almost a certainty that Australia will beat Canada, so let's take that as a given. Further permutations are:

Scenario A1: 
New Zealand beats Sri Lanka and Australia beats Pakistan.
This would mean that New Zealand ends up on 10 points, Sri Lanka remains on 7 points and Pakistan on 8 points. Australia will end up on 11 points and top the group. In this case Pakistan will be placed third in the group.

Scenario A2:
New Zealand beats Sri Lanka and Pakistan beats Australia.
This will most probably result in Pakistan coming second in the group since it is unlikely to overhaul New Zealand's better NRR.

Scenario A3:
Sri Lanka beats New Zealand and Australia beats Pakistan.
Sri Lanka will move on to 9 points, Australia on 11, New Zealand and Pakistan remain on 8 points with NZ probably having a better NRR still. Pakistan ends up in fourth position.

Scenario A4:
Sri Lanka beats New Zealand and Pakistan beats Australia.
Pakistan tops table with 10 points, followed by Sri Lanka or Australia (both on 9) and New Zealand on 8.


As far as Group B is concerned there are even more permutations. But let's assume certain things, such as South Africa almost certainly beating Ireland and Bangladesh (I know this may be a bit unfair to the Pommie-killers but we have to retain some level of realistic probability as well or it all gets much too complicated):

Scenario B1:
India beats West Indies and England beats West Indies.
In this case, South Africa is on top with 10 points, India is second with 9, England is third with 7 and West Indies is fourth with 6 (edging out Bangladesh on better NRR).

Scenario B2:
India beats West Indies and West Indies beat England.
In this case, South Africa is first with 10 points, India second with 9, West Indies third with 8 and Bangladesh fourth with 6. England is out.

Scenario B3:
West Indies beat India and England beats West Indies.
South Africa top the table with 10 points, West Indies is second with 8, India or England is third and fourth depending on NRR.

Scenario B4:
West Indies beat India and England.
West Indies top the table with 10 points and better NRR than South Africa (in second position also with 10 points), India is third with 7, Bangladesh is fourth with 6. England is out.


Now, Pakistan will end up meeting India in the quarters if any of the following combinations take place:

A1 + B1
A1 + B2
A2 + B3
A2 + B4
A4 + B3 (if India comes fourth depending on NRR)

As you can see from the above, the only scenario in which a Pakistan - India quarterfinal can be avoided from Pakistan's end at all costs is A3, i.e. if Pakistan LOSES to Australia AND Sri Lanka beats New Zealand. Obviously, Pakistan can't do much about the Sri Lanka - New Zealand match but it could play its part by losing to Australia, couldn't it?
.
.
.
Now, those with a keen eye and a propensity to cut through mathematical bullcrap will surely point out that the following combinations will also ensure that India and Pakistan do not meet in the first stage of the knock-outs: A1 + B3, A1 + B4, A2 + B1, A2 + B2, A4 + B1, A4 + B2, A4 + B4. And that's not even counting possible rain washouts, ties and any upsets of the assumptions I have made regarding Canada, Bangladesh and Ireland.

I have done all this, of course, only to prove one thing: Pakistani cricket masochism leads to a loss of all sensible and rational thought.

So yeah, fuckit. Just play the game lads. And to my fellow masochists, does it really matter if Pakistan meets India rather than South Africa or West Indies or England or even Bangladesh in the knockout stages? There's no getting round the fact that we've got to beat them to move on.

Leaking Away (Updated)

Reading through the top story in today's The News and Jang, my eyes grew progressively wider and wider. Not so much from the latest Wikileaks revelations about India as from sheer incredulity.

 The News Karachi's front page today

Titled "Enough evidence of Indian involvement in Waziristan, Balochistan" (aside: how much is 'enough'?) in The News, the main story deals with a slew of information allegedly from US diplomatic cables sent from Delhi as well as other missions around the world about India. They confirm everything Pakistanis (or at least certain types of Pakistanis) always said about India: it's direct involvement of India in the anti-state activities in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and Balochistan, the weakness of the Indian dossier on Ajmal Kassab, the manipulated nature of Indian evidence about the ISI's involvement in the Mumbai attacks, the sissyness of India's generals who do things out of personal ego and petulance rather than well-thought-out strategy, the internal rifts in the Indian army, the similarity of the situation in Kashmir with that in Bosnia in the 1990s, the involvement of Indian intelligence in promoting Hindu extremists to conduct false flag attacks against India itself to implicate the ISI and Indian Muslims etc etc etc.

 Jang's front page today

But I think where my incredulity reached a tipping point was when the cables claimed well regarded Indian policeman Hemant Karkare - who had been following leads about the involvement of Indian right-wing Hindutva organizations in the Samjhota Express bombing and about whose death there has already been plenty of controversy within India - was "eliminated in a pre-planned ambush during the Mumbai attacks", the implication being 'by the covert operatives of the Indian army.' According to the report in The News:

"The cable suggested that Hemant Karkare held a secret meeting with a senior US diplomat in New Delhi during the national day reception of a friendly country and briefed him about the gravity and the growing depth of the nexus between top Indian Army leadership and the militant Hindu fanatic groups. Karkare sought security for him and his family from the said American diplomat as he feared that the army and establishment would eliminate him as he intended to move further to expose the network. He had further briefed the said US diplomat that a former commander-in-chief of the Central Command of the Indian army, Lt Gen PN Hoon, was heading the militancy wing of the Hindu extremists and was getting full tactical, logistic and financial support from senior army officers. The day, Karkare was eliminated in a pre-planned ambush during the Mumbai attacks, a cable sent to the US read “we have lost an important link and a vital evidence”."

 

This was HUGE. This was BEYOND huge! Surely the world would be going mad with this new revelation!

Imagine my bewilderment then, when I turned to other papers and discovered that there seemed to be no mention of this story anywhere in any other Pakistani paper... not Dawn, not Express Tribune, not the Daily Times et al (Okay, so The Nation and Nawai Waqt did have it, but who believes anything they run?). Did the Jang Group and Majid Nizami's vanity projects just scoop everyone else? So I went online to check the Indian papers. No mention. Cowards. But what was really strange was that I couldn't seem to find these incredibly incriminating cables anywhere on the Guardian Wikileaks website or even mentioned anywhere in a Google News search.

In fact, the only other place which seemed to have the story were those redoubts of journalistic integrity, Rupee News and the Daily Mail Post type sites. Ah. And this absurd plant is your top story, Jang Group? Really?

Small wonder The News and Jang give the source of the report as "Agencies."

Question: How stupid do the "Agencies" really think Pakistanis are?


: : : UPDATE : : : 

So, the Express Tribune did in fact run a similar story. On page 8. Datelined Washington and sourced from the wire agency Online. I had mistakenly thought they had had better sense but it seems they didn't have much faith in the revelations to put them on the front page or somewhere else more prominent. Which of course begs the question, then why run them at all?

Incidentally, here is a link to the cheerleader Ahmed Quraishi's page, making the most of his imagination. And here is the Daily Mail Post basking in his reflected glory. Thanks to @Rezhasan and Shahid Saeed for the links.

New Editor, Old Perspective

This past week seems to have been a Nizami-obsessed week. Might as well share a final bit of news about the goings on at The Nation.

So, Salim Bokhari has been tipped to take over as editor at The Nation in place of the recently departed Shireen Mazari. Bokhari has been a journalist for almost four decades though most people will recognize him most from appearances as an analyst on various television channels and his recent co-hosting with Orya Maqbool Jan of Aaj TV's reconfigured Bolta Pakistan programme (the team was cobbled together after the departure of Nusrat Javed and Mushtaq Minhas for Dunya TV). Previously, Mr Bokhari's most high profile stint was as the Resident Editor of The News in Lahore. He had left The News to start up the Abu Dhabi-owned The National's Pakistan operations but the Pakistani version was quietly shelved.

Salim Bokhari (right) with Orya Maqbool Jan

Now you might be wondering what would draw The Nation owner Majid Nizami to Mr Bokhari (after all, you must satisfy certain ideological requirements for Majid Nizami to feel comfortable with you). Well, could it be that Mr Bokhari's most recent job - which he took on once The National stint didn't work out - has been as Resident Editor in Lahore of The Daily Mail? You know, the suspect paper that launched this whole brouhaha?

To give you further insight into the content of the rag that Mr Bokhari allowed his name to be associated with, here is how it reported on the launch of the Indo-Pak singing competition for children, Chhote Ustaad, which was broadcast on Geo as well as the Indian Star Plus and eventually went on to become a major hit on both sides of the border:

RAW handpicks Rahat Fateh Ali for fresh anti-Pakistan project

— Rahat sells off Pak kids to RAW like camel jockeys under the grab of music show Chhote Ustaad

— Project initiated to evaporate Pakistani culture, identity

— RAW plans to keep the project for next ten years to eliminate 2-nation theory completely from the minds of Pak Kidz

By Uzma Zafar

"ISLAMABAD—After years of speculation, finally Indian Intelligence Agency Research & Analysis Wing (RAW) appears to has found a smooth operator in the form of Rahat Fateh Ali Khan from Pakistan, on whose shoulder’s they can land their gun and put forward the agenda of making the concept of two-nation theory completely evaporate from the minds of the Pakistani children, make them dance at the tunes of one nation, one world, through it’s recently initiated project Chhote Ustaad, a so called kids’ musical competition show on India’s Star Plus TV while it is being reproduced back in Pakistan by a local TV Channel that is already doing some joint ventures with the known anti-Pakistan Indian Newspaper The Times of India reveal the investigations of The Daily Mail.

The Daily Mail’s investigations further reveal that the desire to rob the Pakistanis of their very identity was on the minds of the RAW for decades but it is only now that the agenda has found a vent through where the very idea can be materialized, infecting the young minds with the idea that their culture is but the same as the Indian one. And what better way than to initiate a supposed talent hunt, putting a music legend of Pakistan; Rahat Fateh Ali on it’s pay roll, to make him dance on the tunes of unity, preaching the idea that two-nation theory is all but a lie, The Daily Mail sources reveal.

The Pakistani kids taken in for the programme are in fact, being used by Rahat Fateh Ali, like camel jockeys, sold on the hands of the RAW, all belonging to poor families and Karachi for that matter, only one being that from Faisalabad.

The Daily Mail’s findings indicate that Star Plus latest season of song based reality show Chhote Ustaad has taken in 10 kids from Pakistan, rather Rahat Fateh Ali has taken them to India for RAW’s fresh covert project against Pakistan for which he has been Paid in millions. Some unconfirmed reports suggest that he has been paid equalling fifty million Pak rupees for one season while the RAW plans to continue it for at least ten seasons. The entire season 2010 is going to be a combo of Pakistani and Indian young talent on the surface but the reality is quite the opposite. Not only this, but the judging panel has Sonu Nigham from India and Rahat Fateh Ali Khan from Pakistan, the latter having no affiliation for the Pakistani kids in the show for he has already sold them for the worse.

The Daily Mail’s findings further reveal that Zee TV took up the initiative earlier, in inviting Pakistani handful of kids and humiliating them onscreen and now it’s Star Plus’ turn to do some more. Also the name has been modified from ‘Star Voice of India Chhote Ustaad’ to ‘Chhote Ustaad – Do Desho ki Awaaz’. One tends to smell rotten fish right from the very idea of picking up kids from Karachi only, just one being taken in from Faisalabad. Karachi is not the whole of Pakistan anyway! Pairing up kids of Pakistan and India itself is a game to malign the very image of two-nation theory in the minds of the Pakistani kids so that, through the years, they even forget their very identity. This could be evident from the phrases that our kids were given to learn, for speaking at the show, being that once they got off the flight, they felt right at home in India. Then again, the question arises, why has the background of the Pakistani kids shown, all belonging to bleak and rather poor families? Was it the criteria of the programme to project the poverty-ridden image of Pakistan? Well, with RAW involved, one can always expect the unexpected. That all was at the back of the minds of the RAW bigwigs and a lot more. The agenda is not that simple that meets the eyes reveal The Daily Mail sources.

The Daily Mail’s investigations reveal that for years and years, Pakistani songs have been illegally twisted and turned to be used in Bollywood flicks. The Bollywood industry has been funded by the RAW and thus, through promotion and making the films available in Pakistan through the black market, our Lollywood industry has never been let to surface. And now the RAW is landing it’s claws over our music industry, being our singers for Bollywood songs and this time, going an extra mile and using a music maestro to hum the tunes of one nation, one goal bullshit, raising the very question in the minds of our kids that what was the need of partition anyway? And to top it all, instead of condemning or banning such an activity at large, Geo has decided to get a little taste of the RAW’s salt and increase it’s earnings to a notch!

When contacted, a former spy agency official stated “The need is for ISI to take the matter in its hands. Black marketing of Bollywood flicks should be curtailed till the RAW agrees to put on Lollywood flicks as well in India and the same should be done to their channels at once. They should not only be banned in Pakistan where their most of the sale is done till they air our programmes on their channels. The joint productions between the two countries should also be given a close check at immediate basis but at the foremost, people like Rahat Fateh Ali should be taught a lesson for cranking his neck at Indian tunes, destroying our music scene at large and making our kids too, sing just the Indian tunes, as if we have no music here. Besides, in all our reality shows, Indian songs should be banned and contestants should be let to perform on our tunes only.

The ISI and other related agencies like the Intelligence Bureau and PEMRA should take strong note of this project and should not let anyone make mockery of the two-nation theory, our identity and culture at large."

So yes, I guess Mr Bokhari would find it incredibly easy to accommodate Majid Nizami's world view.

Blowing Up A Story

The Commonwealth Games (CWG) about to begin in New Delhi in the next couple of days have received plenty of bad press, and most of it quite rightly so. From scandals about massive organizational corruption to poor construction and hygiene standards, the negative media reports have really tarnished the 'Shining India' image that the Indian government was hoping to send out to the world. And as several Indian commentators and social activists have pointed out, there is something intrinsically problematic about spending 2.5 - 6.5 Billion US dollars (estimates vary) on a media spectacle in a country beset by dire poverty and a host of other basic issues. As we know all too well in Pakistan, governments obsessed about projecting positive images of the country to the global media often do it at the cost of what should be real priorities.

But not all of the scandals around the Delhi Commonwealth Games are self-inflicted.

Remember that shocking story about an Australian Channel 7 reporter smuggling explosives into the CGW athlete's village to show the laxity of security standards at the venue? It reverberated across the world, and added to the chorus of voices demanding that the Games be cancelled. Well, as the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's well-respected MediaWatch programme reveals, the story was not all it was cracked up to be. (Thanks to @alexlobov for guiding me to it.)

If you watch /read no other media takedown this week, do watch this to understand how media reports can be manipulated, to devastating effect. And also to understand why the Pakistani media is not the only one sometimes guilty of gross sensationalism. Incidentally the full transcript of the segment can be found here.





Don't you just wish there was an equivalent programme on our television screens? Until that time comes, however, you'll have to do with the net. In any case, I just loved MediaWatch's tagline, which I thought could have been written for us at Cafe Pyala too: "Everyone loves it, until they're on it."

The Curious Case of the 'Concocted' Confession

Imagine my surprise when Monday night I saw a news item on Geo which began with the anchors heaping scorn on the Indian media for following in the footsteps of the English media in trying to 'unfairly attack' Pakistani cricketers. According to Geo, Indian media had "fabricated" a new story about Pakistan cricket and was now claiming that Mohammad Amir, Pakistan's teenage fast-bowling sensation implicated in the recent spot-fixing scandal and subsequently suspended by the International Cricket Council (ICC) pending investigations, had accepted his involvement in the scandal and blamed former captain Salman Butt (also suspended) for leading him astray. The Geo report questioned the credibility of the "Indian media" report that Amir might, in fact, turn approver against Butt by showing footage of Amir moving around with Butt after his return to Pakistan and commented that the footage of their chumminess contradicted the claims by the Indian media.

Here's the story as it appeared in the evening's 9 o' clock news. Watch from 05:42.





So why was I surprised? Because I had read the news item the Geo report was snarkily referring to and condemning, and it was no Indian media where I had read it. In fact, it was an exclusive report on Sunday in Geo's sister Jang Group concern, The News. This is what The News' credible sports reporter Khalid Hussain had published a day earlier:

"Just a couple of days after ‘spot-fixing’ allegations were levelled at him and two other Pakistan players, a teary-eyed Mohammad Amir went to the team management and spilled the beans on Salman Butt — Pakistan’s Test captain. Sources told ‘The News’ on Saturday that the 18-year-old fast bowler told team manager Yawar Saeed and Shahid Afridi, Pakistan’s one-day captain, that he was innocent and just got involved in the scandal because of Salman Butt.

According to the sources, some of Pakistan’s senior players saw Amir meeting with Afridi. The allrounder later took the youngster to Yawar Saeed and three discussed the issue for some time at the team hotel. “Amir told the team management that he wasn’t aware of the gravity of the situation and also claimed that he just followed Butt’s instructions,” said a well-placed source.

…

Sources said that Amir told Afridi and Yawar that he didn’t even know Mazhar Majeed and was introduced to him by Salman Butt. “Amir told Afridi as well as the team manager that he was completely unaware of what was going on. He asked them to help him get out of the mess,” said the source."

Why on earth would Geo pretend it was an Indian media report? And why would they attack and undercut their own group's newspaper report? Was this some bizarre decision to spin a damaging report (and if so, on whose prompting)? Or did it mean that nobody at Geo bothers to read even their own group's newspapers?

The sarcastic report continued to be broadcast all evening and soon other channels - such as Express - also picked up the thread and joined in. The next morning, Geo Super in its own sports headlines too began to attack Indian media for its biases and even showed the offending report in the Times of India (TOI, incidentally, the Jang Group's partner in the floundering Amn Ki Asha project).

A screen-grab of the Times of India report

The TOI report is actually a Press Trust of India (PTI) wire agency report. And then the penny dropped for me (only partially though, as you will see later). Illiterate oafs that Geo sports editors are, I surmised, they had obviously either not read Khalid Hussain's exclusive or failed to connect the fact that the PTI report was probably simply picking up the report in The News.

But there was a problem: even though the PTI report was obviously written more than 12 hours a day after Hussain's report was published, there were some discrepancies between the two reports. For one, the PTI report never cited The News' report as its source and, in fact, claimed slightly different 'facts' regarding Amir's alleged confession. In particular, the PTI report claimed Amir had confessed to Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) Chairman Ijaz Butt rather than one-day team captain Shahid Afridi and manager Yawar Saeed, as Hussain had written.

Here is the original PTI wire report with all its header info intact (which a source has kindly provided us):

SPORT-LD AAMIR(RPT)

Aamir's shocker: Butt lured me into spot-fixing, Saeed resigns

     Karachi, Sep 27 (PTI) Barely five days after the end of their scandal-hit tour of England, fresh turmoil today gripped the Pakistan cricket team with suspended pacer Mohammad Aamir's shocking revelation that he was lured into spot-fixing by Test skipper Salman Butt.

     On a day when team manager Yawar Saeed stepped down from his post, the Pakistan Cricket Board was left to do more firefighting in the spot-fixing scandal with the latest revelation.

     The 18-year-old left-arm pacer was suspended by the ICC for his alleged involvement in spot-fixing during the fourth Test against England at Lord's last month, along with Butt and Mohammad Asif.

     Sources in the PCB said Aamir had told chairman Ijaz Butt that he never wanted to be part of this "business" (spot fixing) but was forced into it by Butt and Asif.

     "Aamir had gone to Butt and claimed he was innocent and a victim of the "seniors power lobby" in the team," a source told PTI.

     But the PCB refuted the reports with legal adviser Tafazzul Rizvi saying that the implicated players continue to claim innocence.

     "All three boys have been saying all along that they did not do anything wrong and they stand by it. They claim innocence and complete innocence and nothing but innocence. We are holding our investigations back at the moment and we are waiting for the Scotland Yard's investigation report," he said.

     Another source revealed that Aamir, regarded as one of Pakistan cricket's most promising young talent, had told Saeed about the pressure being exerted on him by Butt.

     "Aamir's claim is that he just did what he was told to do. He is claiming innocence now and says he didn't even know Mazhar Majeed was introduced to him by Butt and Asif," the source said.

     Quite a few former Test captains, and even Pakistan's former President, Pervez Musharraf, have urged the ICC to show leniency towards Aamir, all of 18 and the quickest to take 50 wickets in Test cricket.

     But chief selector Mohsin Khan said that he didn't agree with the viewpoint that Aamir should be shown leniency because of his age.

     "I don't buy this argument because if you can do something wrong at 18, you can keep on doing it later as well. If these three players are found guilty they should be punished, including Aamir," Mohsin said.

     The chief selector insisted that no cricketer was indispensable and there should be no compromise on discipline and commitment towards your team and country.

     "Aamir must be punished if he is guilty. I just hope that that these three are eventually cleared because they have already damaged the reputation of Pakistan cricket and the country," Mohsin said. PTI CORR AH PM MRM PDS

09271847

First of all, note that the report was filed in the evening of September 27th (at 1847 hours, as evidenced from the filing time at the bottom), whereas Hussain's story was obviously written on September 26th 25th for it to be published on the morning of September 27th 26th. Mighty strange that a supposed exclusive appears on the wires more than a full day after an exclusive on the same exact subject appears in the national papers. Generally, wire agencies will not carry such a story as an exclusive if the news has already been broken earlier.

Secondly, note that whereas Khalid Hussain's piece cites specifics of Amir's confession, the PTI story does not and only cites "PCB sources", one of whom (the legal counsel) actually completely contradicts the assertions. As it is, the only possible sources of Hussain's story, as is obvious from the specifics of the report itself, could be only either Amir, Shahid Afridi or Yawar Saeed, which give it far more credibility. Our sources confirm that Hussain's source was, in fact, Afridi himself. The PTI story, on the other hand, seems to have been an unethical plagiarism of Hussain's story, further embellished and distorted to seem like an original piece of reporting.

But it gets far more interesting. Please note that the dateline on the PTI story is Karachi. That is to say, this report was not "concocted" in India, but rather written / "concocted" by PTI's correspondent in Karachi. So a Pakistani journalist actually wrote the PTI story but yet Geo attacked the Indian media for making up stories about Pakistan cricket. That's not the end of the bizarreness. According to our extremely well-informed sources, guess who moonlights as the PTI's sports correspondent in Karachi? The venerable sports reporter Waheed Khan, that's who.

 Waheed Khan on a Geo Super programme

Waheed Khan was not only Karachi sports editor Khalid Hussain's predecessor at The News but is also currently a senior staffer at Geo Super and apparently responsible for the content of Geo Super's bulletins. (Incidentally, Khan also covers sports for Reuters but the story never ran on that wire agency.) He is one of the 'big guns' of sports journalism in Pakistan and has done some stellar reporting work in the past, especially during the match-fixing saga of the 1990s. It seems, however, that this time his professional jealousy at Hussain's exclusive seems to have got the better of him. According to sources, he and Hussain are not on the best of terms either, mainly because Khan has been attempting to get a foothold again at The News as well, which would impact Hussain's position.

So, in effect, a Jang Group staffer first (surreptitiously) put out an "exclusive" that, in all probability, was simply an embellishment on another Jang Group staffer's real exclusive (even if it was not, it wasn't an exclusive by any stretch of the imagination since it had been beaten to the finish line by more than 24 hours). And when that faux exclusive was picked up in the most roundabout way by his own Jang Group organization (which obviously does not bother to read Jang Group newspapers), he helped or at least supervised its on-air demolition on Jang Group channels as an example of a fabricated story by Indian sources.

If that doesn't make your head spin, I don't know what will.

Creating Sympathy for Militancy

This is a shocking video from Indian Kashmir which demonstrates once again what the mentality of a frustrated and unpopular military force becomes against 'natives' it believes are all enemies... One could add that these sort of abuses are common wherever there are military forces considered outsiders or occupiers (Abu Ghraib, Gaza, East Pakistan anyone?) but that's neither here nor there. This is a video specifically from Kashmir and should give pause to those of our readers who were quick to claim that my characterizations of the situation in Indian administered Kashmir were exaggerated.

Keep in mind that we do not know the background here or the exact date this was recorded, seemingly on a mobile phone (it was uploaded only two days ago on this site). But a couple of things are quite clear:

1. that the perpetrators of these human rights abuses are Indian security forces and
2. the interest of these security forces here has nothing to do with security but rather with humiliating these boys (just listen to the instructions to them not to dare cover their private parts).

I have always wondered at the mentality of such people wielding power. After such an experience, why wouldn't these boys - even if completely peaceful before - have more empathy for militancy?


Viewer discretion is advised.

(It seems there is something wrong with the embed code since the video does not show up on the blog. So you will just have to go to the site linked above to see the video.)

The Clueless Mr Harrison

The only question that can possibly arise from any sensible follower of international relations after reading Center for International Policy director and former Washington Post South Asia bureau chief Selig Harrison's August 26 op-ed in the New York Times is this: Is Selig Harrison a paid lobbyist for India or simply senile?

Selig S. Harrison: using a table to seem reflective

So full of bollocks is his piece - written breathlessly like a breaking news story - that it is hard to imagine who could possibly ever take it or Mr Harrison seriously. The basic thrust of the op-ed is that Pakistan has covertly handed over the Gilgit-Baltistan region to the Chinese, a "fact" that it seems only Mr Harrison is privy to and thus he becomes the Chosen One to reveal it to the world. In fact, just hearing about this was enough for me to dismiss the story and move on. I mean, you have to ask yourself, despite our longstanding security ties with China, given Pakistan's national psyche, is such a thing even possible? Could such a development actually happen without anyone knowing about it? Or a hue and cry arising about it in at least Pakistan's anarchic media? (And please don't bring in that sliver of land called Aksai Chin into this, as far as I know nobody lives in that remote desert.)

But now that the Pakistan Foreign Office was forced to issue a rebuttal, I thought I would go back and actually read the piece. And woe is me. Mr Harrison begins with the kind of ominous foreboding that would suit a Tom Clancy thriller, and had it been a film rather than a printed article, would have surely included a menacing dhen dhen dhen soundtrack...

"While the world focuses on the flood-ravaged Indus River valley, a quiet geopolitical crisis is unfolding in the Himalayan borderlands of northern Pakistan, where Islamabad is handing over de facto control of the strategic Gilgit-Baltistan region in the northwest corner of disputed Kashmir to China."

Unfortunately, having set up his thriller, he almost immediately puts his foot into his rather large mouth by making factually ridiculous claims:

"The entire Pakistan-occupied western portion of Kashmir stretching from Gilgit in the north to Azad (Free) Kashmir in the south is closed to the world, in contrast to the media access that India permits in the eastern part, where it is combating a Pakistan-backed insurgency."

Does Selig even know anything of what he writes about? Gilgit-Baltistan is closed to the world??? Has he ever heard of European trekking and mountaineering expeditions? Or Japanese and Korean tourists visiting Buddhist relics? Or the Aga Khan Rural Support Programme that has international consultants coming in and out of the region with more regularity than he probably goes to the loo with? Or has he never read international dispatches from Muzaffarabad during the earthquake or from the site of the recent Attabad landslide lake in Hunza? Yes, foreigners do need a special visa to go into these areas, partly because Pakistan officially considers them disputed areas and partly because of security concerns. But not only does Pakistani media reach these areas but most newspapers have permanent correspondents based there and report regularly from there. But of course, this fool gives his hand away by comparing it to the "media access that India permits" in Indian-administered Kashmir (which foreign correspondents also need special permission for.) You have to be either totally blinkered or totally corrupt to make the case that media access in the Valley of Kashmir is greater than in Gilgit-Baltistan or Pakistan-administered Kashmir.




Mr Harrison then adds:

"... reports from a variety of foreign intelligence sources, Pakistani journalists and Pakistani human rights workers reveal two important new developments in Gilgit-Baltistan: a simmering rebellion against Pakistani rule and the influx of an estimated 7,000 to 11,000 soldiers of the People’s Liberation Army."

Aah, the "simmering rebellion" hypothesis, so favoured by Selig. You might go: what? where? How come I didn't see it in Skardu? But then you probably have not followed Mr Harrison's career. Here are two takedowns of his earlier claims, the first from an excellent blog on all things Central Asian called Registan, the other from the Pakistan Policy blog. Registan's post, evocatively and correctly titled "The Inexplicable Longevity of Selig S. Harrison" begins thus:

"Selig S. Harrison has a curious relationship with reality—that is to say, not much of one."

And that in essence is all you need to know about this former hack.


Incidentally, the People's Liberation Army soldiers? Apparently Chinese civilians who have come with flood relief goods and those helping the rebuilding of the Karakorum Highway, which if you recall, was built with Chinese assistance in the first place and has been severely damaged by the recent floods. Harrison in fact admits that most of the Chinese are "working on dams, expressways and other projects." But he also questions some "mysterious tunnels" that he believes could be used for laying oil pipelines and to hide missiles, and plans for railroad and road links that China could use to "transport cargo from Eastern China to... Gwadar." Oh wow. Damn those nefarious-minded Asian types, trying to do things for their own benefit.


By the way, doesn't everyone know about Pakistan's longtime collaboration with China on security matters? And why shouldn't Pakistan collaborate with China to build its infrastructure or even as a military counter-weight to India? And why would the Chinese do it unless they see something in it for themslves? Isn't 'strategic national interest' the very foundation of international state relations? But Mr Harrison sees something sinister in this. Why? Basically because:

"Coupled with its support for the Taliban, Islamabad’s collusion in facilitating China’s access to the Gulf makes clear that Pakistan is not a U.S. “ally.” Equally important, the nascent revolt in the Gilgit-Baltistan region is a reminder that Kashmiri demands for autonomy on both sides of the cease-fire line would have to be addressed in a settlement."

By the way, I have no clue what he means by the second part, regardless of his imaginary "nascent revolt" repetition. So, reminders that the Kashmir issue remains outstanding is a problem for you Selig?


But of course Mr Harrison can't leave it at that. He must earn his lobbying funds (ok, I have no proof of this, but I would be dumbfounded if the following bit of Indian establishment fantasy were being repeated without any quid pro quo):

"Media attention has exposed the repression of the insurgency in the Indian-ruled Kashmir Valley. But if reporters could get into the Gilgit-Baltistan region and Azad Kashmir, they would find widespread, brutally-suppressed local movements for democratic rights and regional autonomy."

I have news for you Selig. People all over Pakistan desire democratic rights and regional autonomy (as, dare I say, they do in vast swathes of Moaist insurgency-wracked India) but nowhere in Gilgit-Baltistan and Azad Kashmir will you find the kind of brutal military-backed suppression of local movements that you will find in the Valley. To draw equivalences there is the height of ignorance, of cynicism or devious attempts to deflect focus.


And of course no two-bit "expert" on South Asia (or any third world area) can go without attempting to stoke sectarian / ethnic fires through sweeping generalizations:

"When the British partitioned South Asia in 1947, the maharajah who ruled Kashmir, including Gilgit and Baltistan, acceded to India. This set off intermittent conflict that ended with Indian control of the Kashmir Valley, the establishment of Pakistan-sponsored Free Kashmir in western Kashmir, and Pakistan’s occupation of Gilgit and Baltistan, where Sunni jihadi groups allied with the Pakistan Army have systematically terrorized the local Shiite Muslims."

Yes, of course, he has to bring in the Shia-Sunni angle as well, as if his main aim is to protect the Shia of Gilgit-Baltistan (shades of neo-con "experts" wanting to protect the Shia in Iraq, the women in Afghanistan etc). Yes, there are sectarian tensions in parts of the area (Gilgit city for example) which have existed for decades and periodically erupt into violence. But he is obviously confusing areas like Kurram Agency in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) - where Al Qaeda backed militants have terrorized Shia populations - as part of the Northern Areas. I have yet to hear of any overt jihadi outfits operating in the Northern Areas. But when your agenda is something else, geography is the least of your concerns.




Selig Harrison goes on:

"Gilgit and Baltistan are in effect under military rule. Democratic activists there want a legislature and other institutions without restrictions like the ones imposed on Free Kashmir, where the elected legislature controls only 4 out of 56 subjects covered in the state constitution. The rest are under the jurisdiction of a “Kashmir Council” appointed by the president of Pakistan. India gives more power to the state government in Srinagar; elections there are widely regarded as fair, and open discussion of demands for autonomy is permitted."

That "democratic activists there want a legislature" must certainly come as news to Northern Areas elected chief minister Mehdi Shah and his elected cabinet. I guess Selig was sleeping when the Northern Areas elections were held. He is right that there is resentment about how much real power the legislatures of Azad Kashmir (which have their own president and prime minister) and Gilgit-Baltistan actually enjoy but do keep in mind that unlike India, Pakistan does not claim to have incorporated the region into the country and, at least accepts their position as regions whose status is yet to be resolved. The bit about elections in Indian-administered Kashmir being "widely regarded as fair" would be laughable (at least as far as the Valley is concerned) if only there were no daily military-enforced curfews and large-scale protests every day there by ordinary Kashmiris demanding independence (no, Selig, they are not demanding "greater autonomy" within India, but nice of you to at least concede that all is not hunky dory there).


Notice also that he never once points out that the people of Gilgit-Baltistan do not consider themselves historically part of Kashmir and their strongest demand has always been a de-linking of their status from that of Kashmir. Why? Probably because it goes against the Indian establishment narrative.


Nevertheless, Mr Harrison provides his prescription for what the US should do with (to?) Pakistan:

"In Pakistan, Washington should focus on getting Islamabad to stop aiding the insurgency in the Kashmir Valley and to give New Delhi a formal commitment that it will not annex Gilgit and Baltistan. Precisely because the Gilgit-Baltistan region is so important to China, the United States, India and Pakistan should work together to make sure that it is not overwhelmed, like Tibet, by the Chinese behemoth."

So, India should be "pressed" to resume talks with separatists on autonomy (kind of like the US presses Israel to resume Middle East talks?) even as its claims to Kashmir as a part of its union are accepted, while Islamabad gives New Delhi "a formal commitment" about keeping Gilgit and Baltistan in limbo? Oh, I understand Selig, it's because what is important to the US (and you) has nothing to do with the people of GB per se or what they want but with the United States' own strategic interests vis a vis keeping China at bay. And yes, we should all work together to make sure GB is not overwhelmed by China (a patently manufactured scare in the first place), since the only sort of overwhelming that is kosher is by the US. What Selig is basically saying is, if you want to be overwhelmed, Main Hoon Na. Thanks for clearing that up.




Tailpiece: You might have wondered what the Center for International Policy is all about, because any organization that has someone as clueless or mealy-mouthed as Selig Harrison as a director, well what can you really say about its credibility? Well here's what Wikipedia has to say about it's history:

"The Center for International Policy (CIP), located in Washington DC, was founded in 1975 by diplomats and peace activists in the wake of the Vietnam War. On its website, the Center describes its mission as "Promoting a U.S. foreign policy based on international cooperation, demilitarization and respect for human rights.""

How the mighty have fallen! At least they are keeping up the "promoting a U.S. foreign policy" bit.

Going For A Leak

I have such mixed emotions about the WikiLeaks expose of the Afghan War Diaries and so many strands of thought that I want to pursue that this is going to be a difficult post. But I'm going to try and present at least some of them in as coherent a manner as I can. I hope you will bear with me. For my own sake (and probably for readers' sake as well) I will break up the different strands with sub-heads.

Is The WikiLeaks Expose A Good Thing?

Generally, yes. Any puncturing of the facade of unaccountable power is a great thing in my book. But particularly when it involves exposing the reality of a conflict that very few outside the conflict zone have even a basic understanding of, it is invaluable. We are fed so many lies by governments and the hand-in-glove media that narratives that challenge those fabrications and lead to questioning among the public are the only way to challenge that hegemony.

However. There are a couple of things which also bother me about the recent leak of apparently over 92,000 previously secret files. The first is based on taking the leaks at face value. As most of us know by now, the secret documents are mostly raw field intelligence reports, that is they are the reports filed by Western soldiers on the frontline reporting incidents, interactions and intelligence culled from various sources. These were meant to be internal documents for their superior officers. Not only do they reflect the competence and biases of the soldiers writing them up as well as contain cover-ups (after all, soldiers don't want anything bad to reflect on themselves in front of superiors), they have not been verified, double-checked or passed up through a filtration process that assesses their credibility via other sources. So, yes, there is a vicarious thrill to seeing what things are like for soldiers on the frontline or how a military operates in such a situation, and there may be very useful information to be gleaned from them, but in and of themselves, they are not terribly helpful for the average reader to understand what is actually going on. Readers who take these reports at face value - as most readers are tending to do - are likely to mire themselves further in the "fog of war" rather than cut through it, to paraphrase Mahir Ali in Dawn today.

As a parallel, imagine for a moment having access to an investigative reporter's notebook that details every observation, every possible lead, every interview, every hunch, every rumour or remark heard. Many of these leads, hunches and rumours could be simply false and not all observations, interviews and overheard remarks are helpful in clarifying the story. Now imagine having access to the notebooks of thousands of reporters working on the same story and believing everything as true. That is the danger of treating these documents as gospel, just because they were classified as secret and have now been leaked.

Julian Assange: mystery man

The second thing that makes me uneasy is WikiLeaks itself. I know this will probably sound terribly conspiratorial, but I cannot say with 100 percent surety that it is not all part of some grand psy-ops strategy: you know, build up an institution with calculated cred boosters (e.g. the leaked Iraq helicopter footage) and then use it to release info you want to release. It's not like it has never been done before, although of course never on a global level. Okay, I know I'm probably sounding like a nutter now but bear with me. Yes, I've read the wonderful profile of maverick Julian Assange (the driving force behind WikiLeaks) in The New Yorker, but I never quite understood the over-dramatized cloak and dagger stuff. Are we really being asked to believe that a man as publicly recognizable as Assange, who jets from continent to continent, can escape being tracked by international security agencies? Or that WikiLeaks, which claims to run entirely on donations (including credit card donations), does not have a single bank account or money transfer that is trace-able? Really?

Ok, forget my questions about WikiLeaks. Is it really beyond the realm of possibility for WikiLeaks and Assange, no matter how pure of heart they are, to be used by psy-op warriors wanting to put certain things out in the public realm? Are we really being asked to believe that 92,000 plus secret documents can be easily smuggled out of the Pentagon (on a Lady GaGa CD, no less, if some reports are to be believed) without anyone having any inkling? Anything is possible I guess but the probability on the other hand is a different matter.

Forgive me for being a doubting Thomas and slightly cynical. But these are the reasons I would not take the leaks at face value even as I accept the mining of the data for useful information. I hope my doubts about WikiLeaks are misplaced though.



Do We Learn Anything New in the Leaks?

I guess the answer to this depends on how much you know of Afghanistan and how much you have followed the story of the conflict there. For most old hands, there is nothing sensationally new in the documents (at least from what has come to light so far). But you do get a lot of details and a very good idea of the way much of them are covered up. For example, the number of attacks on Coalition Forces (CF) and the far larger number of civilian casualties than have been reported previously. Or the almost comic attempts of American soldiers to win hearts and minds among the local populace. And most of all you understand in the minutae why this conflict will end unsuccessfully for the US.



Is This The Smoking Gun Against Pakistan?

In one word, no. The allegations against Pakistan's military establishment for playing a double game in Afghanistan may well be true (I will come back to this later) but these documents do not prove it. At best they remain allegations. Most of the documents detailing the ISI's backing for the Taliban are, as already pointed out, based on questionable intelligence sources, either Afghan intelligence operatives (who have well known hostility to the ISI) or paid informers (who have a vested interest in selling sensational stories). Some of them are plainly laughable, such as the alleged ISI plan to poison Western forces' beer supplies. According to the intel, the alcohol was going to be purchased from Miranshah in Waziristan - yeah, right! - and Peshawar, mixed with poison and then airdropped and trucked into Afghanistan for Coalition Forces to consume (it would seem from this that the CF are quite keen on the FATAbrau brand and short of their Budweisers).

One of the most respected Afghanistan experts and a former European Union deputy head of mission in Afghanistan, Michael Semple, had this assessment to make about the reports in The Guardian (by far the most level-headed assessment I have read so far in the Western press and certainly worth reading in its entirety):

"Although most of Afghanistan's trade comes through Pakistan and Pakistan was the main place of refuge for Afghan refugees during the 1980s, the most popular way of establishing credentials as an Afghan nationalist has long been to denounce Pakistan as the enemy.

 

Among the 180 reports of ISI interference, most are drawn from informants or briefings from the Afghan intelligence service, who describe in lurid detail direct involvement of ISI officers in trying to wreak havoc inside Afghanistan. The bulk of them can now be dismissed as unreliable either with the benefit of hindsight (they warn of impending disasters which never happened) or on the basis of implausibility (conveying details the source could not have known) and because they fit in with a pattern of disinformation (stories constructed from recurrent themes and familiar characters).

 

One set of informants most likely passed on these reports because they found there was a market for them. More politically motivated informants, such as those Afghan officials who supplied briefings which US personnel later wrote up as intelligence, probably wanted to strengthen US backing by turning the US against Pakistan."

It is important to reiterate that most of these intel reports have not been been verified or confirmed as correct. The one exception to this (as far as I can tell so far) may be a Polish intelligence report about an allegedly ISI-backed impending attack on the Indian consulate in Kabul a week before it happened. That intel was apparently corroborated by US intercepts of communication, which were presented to the Pakistan government by the CIA Deputy Head Stephen Kappes.

Which brings me back to the issue of whether the ISI (or at least elements within it) really is involved in backing the Taliban in Afghanistan. There has been enough chatter around the issue for one to believe that there may be some kernel of truth to the matter. I have no proof and none has been conclusively presented but there is plenty of circumstantial evidence to support the thesis - after all, could the insurgency succeed without backing from any quarters in Pakistan? But putting your realpolitik hat on, try and think about it slightly differently. There are two questions:

Q1. Is the ISI's double-game directed against the US or against India, whose influence it is trying to counter in Afghanistan? I am no fan of the ISI and its shenanigans but given the mindset of the Pakistan army and the agency's mandate, would it not be completely understandable for it to work to undermine Indian influence on Pakistan's western flank? And who would be a more logical partner than the opposition to the government that it believes is completely in India's pocket? And it's not as if Indian intelligence agencies do not have their own goals in Afghanistan and have not actively pursued the objective of marginalizing Pakistan's interests in the country. Now, you may argue that the problem is that by using the Taliban to undermine Indian influence, the ISI would necessarily be pitting itself against US interests as well. And you may be right. But I am willing to bet (if this hypothesis is true) that the ISI believes it can limit the fallout - it would probably be as wrong as it has been in the past with such things but it would still believe it.

Q2. In strategic terms, is Pakistan hedging its bets vis a vis the Taliban, so entirely shocking? Given past history of US involvement in the region, given how badly the US war in Afghanistan has gone, given the history of broken promises regarding safeguarding Pakistani interests in the region (vis a vis India) and given the increasing domestic pressure in the US to pull out, is it entirely surprising if Pakistan should? Especially if it feels the US will eventually leave behind a mess like the last time it pulled out? Especially if it fears that once the US forces move out, it will have to confront hostile neighbours on both sides?

Now, I should clarify that I would be the last person you would think of as a Taliban supporter. I am merely attempting to argue within the security state paradigm, the way the military probably is thinking about this. It's not something I like (because of what the Taliban represent and what the other repercussions would be on Pakistan) but given the geostrategic imperatives of the region, it is something I can almost understand.

The biggest irony about the WikiLeaks saga is that while the documents may not have provided any smoking gun of Pakistani backing for the Taliban, the dismay in Western (particularly US) audiences over the failing war effort will almost surely lead to increasing pressure on their governments to pull out forces sooner rather than later...which would help entrench Pakistani military opinion that backing the Taliban is the sensible thing to do, as an insurance policy for the coming mess.

We are screwed either way.



So, Why The Inordinate Focus On Pakistan?

I wanted to end this post with my assessment of the possible game plan around the leaks. Particularly a comparison of how a marginal media player such as The Guardian has presented the findings as opposed to the major media player, The New York Times, since the two vastly different takes tell us a lot about the stakes involved. Plus how the issue has been dealt with by other media players in interested areas such as India. But this post is already too long and I am completely exhausted. So I will defer this portion for another separate post (or perhaps an update on this one) when I am slightly refreshed. Till then.