Facing a media world war

In real terms, Pakistan is today the target of a media world war. Virtually all substantial news coverage and all analytical or editorial comments about Pakistan in global media and in the internal media of most nations are predominantly negative or hostile. In response to this relentless onslaught from across the planet, Pakistan is not using a single world-scale media weapon to counter the attack.

The anti-Pakistan media world war has a direct impact on our national security. It questions our capacity to exist as a responsible state and as a stable member of the international community. It projects an image of a dangerously volatile and destructively violent country. It stunts our economic growth by discouraging foreign investment and tourism.

Overtly as well as subtly it promotes the view that our state should be subjected to new multilateral monitoring mechanisms and that we might even be a fit case for unilateral intervention. While not being physically destructive, the media war, in one sense, is worse. It erodes and diminishes the contours of our true identity in the minds of billions of people exposed to overseas media.

In addition to being a threat to our state's security, the anti-Pakistan media war is a gross misrepresentation of a unique nation. Our warts are magnified out of all proportion. Our finer features are ignored. Even after we allow for the innate preoccupation of media with 'bad' news, Pakistan does not get a fair deal.

The global media view of Pakistan as it prevails in 2004 has been formed through a cumulative process over several decades. But the present image was acquired more intensively during the past ten years.

Our poor social development indicators, our association with the Taliban, the violence in different forms against women, our linkage with the violence in Indian-occupied Kashmir, our tolerance of religious extremism, the disruptions of our democracy, the role of the armed forces in political affairs, the recurrence of bombings and killings in which both foreigners and our own citizens have perished; and, most recently, our role in nuclear proliferation, have combined to contribute to the way the world - and the world media - perceives us today.

Whether the content about Pakistan in global media is news, current affairs analysis, coverage of social and cultural issues, depiction in feature films, TV plays or literature, for every nine negative references to Pakistan, there is barely one positive reference.

This severe imbalance is unrelieved partly because our positive attributes are rarely, or never acknowledged. And partly because we ourselves provide enough grounds to justify negative coverage.

From the brutal murder of a leading American journalist to the carnage of Muslims killing fellow Muslims, we certainly keep the world's media well-occupied with the worst possible news from our country.

If nine out of ten items on Pakistan in overseas media are negative, it is ironic that nine out of ten foreigners, specially those from the West who visit Pakistan for the first time are always pleasantly surprised to discover that our country is a far more hospitable and harmonious place to be in than what they had been led to believe by media coverage in their country.

When President General Pervez Musharraf appears in overseas media as a staunch ally in the war against terror and as a modernist in contrast to the mullahs, the ferocity of the anti-Pakistan media war wanes just a bit.

But even as foreign media portray him as a friend and even as our western allies abandon reservations about dealing with military rulers in an increasingly civilian and democratic world, doubts and apprehensions about the general's sincerity, his effectiveness and his longevity in office are emphatically expressed. These provisos neutralize much of the goodwill that the General generates through his appearances.

By himself, the president remains in media terms, a valuable yet inadequate counterweight to the imbalance of the media forces aligned against us. Occasional "good" news about us such as a Pakistani victory on a sports field is sometimes diluted by allegations of ball tampering and match-fixing!

Also inadvertently adding grist to the mill of this media war against Pakistan are several Pakistani public figures, news analysts and columnists. Most of them are based within the country, some of them based overseas.

Motivated by the admirable desire to say what, in their opinion, is true and that which they believe is good for the country, they actually manage to damage our image.

Whereas their valid target is a particular government or particular actions of the present government, the result of their writings and utterances makes the state and the society of Pakistan the real victims. Their views are eagerly used as confirmation of our negative aspects which most overseas media already claim to know.

Some of our own journalists and analysts who contribute to overseas media and to Pakistani media, often use a particular tone and approach in their comments about the government's actions which are so close to the overseas media's views about Pakistan that one sometimes cannot make out whether this is an unfriendly foreigner writing about Pakistan or one of our own citizens being courageously self-critical.

There are also some think-tanks and groups, either indigenous to Pakistan or Pakistan-based branches of international networks. These prepare periodic reports on those aspects of our government's policies and actions that are of special interest to major overseas countries.

By and large, these reports are highly critical. They add fuel to the already raging fire. Universal values cut across national and continental barriers and should be espoused.

But it is certainly painful to see how some of our fellow-citizens help reinforce perceptions and prejudices about Pakistan. Their sincerity and patriotism are deeply rooted. It is their judgment and choice of approach that are disturbing.

Rarely do overseas media refer to the fact that in print media and in private electronic media, Pakistan has some of the highest standards amongst developing countries in freedom of expression.

Territorial frontiers are visible and enforceable. Communication frontiers are, for the most part, invisible, and generally unenforceable, except in extreme cases.

For instance, countries as varied as China, Malaysia and Singapore have controlled access by their citizens to satellite TV channels and the Internet - which has not prevented them from becoming economically dynamic countries!The communication frontiers of the US cover the whole globe.

Similar Indian frontiers dominate South Asia and also extend to other parts of the planet because of Bollywood, because of the country's willingness to be part of a contemporary global culture.

Pakistan's communication frontiers are weak and vulnerable. They are breached with impunity and our communications space is invaded every minute and every day.

With the PTV World signal being potentially visible in 60 plus countries and with private TV channels from inside and outside Pakistan also making large "footprints" across Asia we delude ourselves that we are projecting our country better than we did in the past. We ignore the fact that such channels are viewed largely by overseas Pakistanis, and not by those who are the unconverted.

It is cold comfort that PTV remains the only TV channel in the entire world that presents daily reports on the violations of human rights in Indian-occupied Kashmir. And that India's extremist groups such as the Shiv Sena in Mumbai, and others across the country intimidate Indians against watching PTV.

The websites of our leading English newspapers may produce enthusiastic responses from non-Pakistanis. But altogether, our present communication frontiers are no match for the huge task of defence and benign 'offence'.

There are five factors that motivate or shape the media world war on Pakistan. These are:

1) The ugly and unpleasant reality of certain aspects of our own condition for which we alone are responsible. Thus, overseas media serve as mirrors of what actually exists.

2) The sheer ignorance and bias of many personnel in overseas media outlines the superficiality and skin-thin approach with which they portray our complexities.

3) There are inherent prejudices overseas against a country like Pakistan that calls itself an "Islamic republic" and yet fails to pursue "ijtehad" and reforms, when other states are becoming increasingly secular.

4) Barring a few exceptions, most overseas media, specially western media despite being "independent" serve as instruments to further the objectives, interests and values of the states, the societies and the corporate sectors in which the media are based. Sometimes, these determinants are entirely opposite to the interests and values espoused by Pakistan.

5) Historically, and continuously to this date, we have failed to invest the diverse, the professional and the financial resources required to project a credible, positive portrait of ourselves in overseas countries and in world media in particular.

We cannot, in the short term and in the medium term, do much about the second, the third and the fourth of the above five factors. However, we can make efforts to change the first and the fifth factors for the better.

To be concluded

The writer is a former minister of information and media development.

Reviving the half dead schools

The minister of education recently gave some interesting information in reply to a question in the National Assembly regarding foreign assistance in the education sector signed during the last one year. According to this information, the government has concluded 15 agreements on education improvement projects with nine foreign countries and agencies.

The amount for the projects were given in various western foreign currencies, but when converted into rupees at current exchange rates, the foreign assistance totalled some Rs1.3 billion.

Of the 15 projects, two alone make up Rs1 billion. One is the Rs5,700 million ($100 million) Strategic Objective Grant agreement for Education Sector Reforms signed with USAID, and the other is the Rs4,220 million (euro 59 million) National Indicative Programme concluded with the European Union.

Compare this Rs1.3 billion in foreign assistance for education with the 2003-2004 federal budget estimate expenditure on education, which is Rs1.7 billion (Rs9,645 million current expenditure and Rs7,836 million development expenditure, 2003-2004 Annual Budget Statement).

Given the fact that some of the foreign-aided projects are spread over several years, nevertheless Rs1.3 billion is 76 per cent of the government's education expenditure of Rs1.7 billion.

If the government could at least match the foreign assistance contribution and put in Rs1.3 billion too, the budget estimate expenditure in the education sector could perhaps have increased from Rs1.7 billion to Rs2.6 billion.

That the government needs to spend much more on education than even this amount is quite evident. Despite all the hype in the past few years about reforms and increased expenditure in the education sector, the result has remained dismal.

A recent UN human development report has ranked Pakistan among the 15 bottom countries with respect to the education index (and 144th out of 175 countries with respect to human development).

Also, according to the ADB country director, who spoke at a round-table conference on Sindh education in Karachi last week, net primary enrolment rate of Pakistan is 46 per cent, the lowest in South Asia, and the combined enrolment rate for primary and secondary school children is 36 per cent, again well below the regional average of 54 per cent.

The conference highlighted the fact that many schools in Sindh are without basic facilities like roof, furniture, boundary walls, toilet facilities, water supply, and even teachers. But the education scenario is bleak not only in Sindh but the whole country it seems.

Even Punjab is in a similar predicament as far as education facilities are concerned. The Punjab education minister, speaking at a convocation of a women's college in Rawalpindi last week, said half of the 63,000 government-run schools in his province lack basic facilities like boundary walls, classrooms, playgrounds, furniture, electricity, toilets, water supply and trained teaching staff. He warned that more funds needed to be earmarked for the education sector and its development if the country wanted to develop.

But how far will the Rs1.3 billion foreign assistance help in addressing and solving the above basic problems plaguing the education sector? Especially given the fact that at the Karachi conference last week, many speakers were disappointed by the lack of overall impact of the various schemes and projects implemented so far, including those aided by foreign agencies, on the education indicators in Sindh, in particular, and the country in general.

What seems to be the problem is the lack of political commitment to nationally restructure and really reform the public education sector, committing all the funds necessary to improve the facilities in the existing schools and colleges, and to build more educational institutions.

But the trend of the government seems to be more towards establishing new educational institutions, and formulating new projects and schemes - whether they are really necessary or not - while continuing to neglect the tens of thousands of already existing institutions, which badly need resuscitation.

New schools, new colleges and new institutions can only complement the role of the multitude of already existing institutions, not take over their place. And foreign assistance can only be a supplement and not the solution to what the government itself should be doing to improve public sector education so that it delivers the desired results.

As has been the case however, the government seems to find it cheaper and more politically beneficial, in the short term at least, to establish a string of new institutions and launch new foreign-funded projects, rather than to revive and improve the tens of thousands of ill-equipped and half dead schools, colleges and universities, and then to sustain them.

Little does the government seem to realize that it is these tens of thousands of existing institutions which hold the key to achieving the desired, but so far elusive, education targets.

Guests from Amethi

One was surprised to see so many policemen at a popular restaurant in Clifton on the day India won the ODI in Karachi. Inquiries revealed that an important Indian guest was expected that evening.

And, sure enough, by 8pm, which is considered early by Karachi standards, Priyanka Gandhi arrived along with her brother and husband to savour the culinary delights of Karachi.

Surrounding her were about 50 security personnel and the whole entourage made its way to the rooftop, where the entire floor had been booked for two hours. Despite her presence, none of the guests at the restaurant were inconvenienced in any way.

The only inconvenience suffered may have been by the restaurant management, which had to serve her security detail with free food. Our sources say that the party sat for a longer time than expected and favourites included reshmi kebab and ribs besides grilled prawns.

Friendship House reopens

The poet Faiz Ahmad Faiz once narrated an interesting incident. He recalled that on a visit to Karachi, he, along with a Soviet writers' delegation, passed by a cinema house with a long queue of people waiting to buy tickets. One of the writers asked Faiz if a new book had come out.

It was their love for books which got the Russians to set up what is still called Friendship House, the Soviet cultural centre, with a well-stocked library.

The youths of Karachi, particularly those interested in Marxism, used to go there to read books on political economy, space sciences, metallurgy and other subjects.

They would also watch such outstanding films as War and Peace and Anna Karenina. It was easy to become a member of the library, and approachable directors like Qurban Beg and Shen Shen used to encourage youngsters. The library was useful to the students of metallurgy who were eager to join Pakistan Steel Mills, built with Soviet assistance.

Friendship House also held chess competitions. It was shifted to Block 6 in PECHS where the Soviet Press and Information Centre was located when it was closed by the Zia regime in the wake of the Afghan war. Book lovers, especially students, were naturally very disappointed.

It is heartening to learn that it has re-opened after a gap of some 20 years. The people of Karachi can once again read the best Russian writers and watch classics - although some may find the atmosphere a little more prosaic than in the old days of the Soviet Union.

Fortress Frere

The emergence of a fortress-like structure on one side of Frere Gardens should alarm all those Karachians who attach importance to the aesthetic look of their city. The imposing structure is actually the Japanese consulate building, which is being constructed on a new site unmindful of the way it will dominate the skyline in the area.

The new building, which in any case does not blend with the landscape, will obscure the view of Frere Hall from one side. Instead of housing their consular offices there, perhaps the Japanese, who have always been generous towards Pakistan, could utilize the building as a cultural centre or a theatre.

If this is done, the need for the forbidding fences would be done away with and the people of Karachi would have a gift to remember the Japanese by.

Breeding instructions

A health inspector visiting houses in Karachi recently left a resident flabbergasted. On his insistence that the resident bring out a child of under five years for him to vaccinate against polio, the resident said he couldn't since there wasn't any in his house.

He offered to bring out one of the kittens from his backyard, however. Disappointed, the health inspector suggested that the young man should get married and start a family at once so that he had a child to vaccinate against the crippling disease on his next round in 2005.

Remote-controlled politics

With the leaders of three of the country's main political parties pulling the strings from exile, there's much to-ing and fro-ing of party workers between Pakistan and Dubai, Jeddah and London. Local leaders are summoned for consultations and party meetings or simply to tell them of the line to follow.

Pakistan People's Party politicians fly to Dubai to call on Benazir Bhutto every time the ongoing politico-constitutional crisis takes a new turn. If they are lucky, Ms Bhutto may be in sojourn in London and they may get to pay a visit to the swinging British capital.

Muttahida Qaumi Movement chief Altaf Hussain also summons his men to London. Politicians belonging to the Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz group) make frequent pilgrimages to Saudi Arabia to hobnob with the Sharifs.

The same politicians who lean so much for advice upon their leaders in exile often criticize the government for taking unpopular decisions at the behest of international powers, particularly the United States.

Be that as it may, many wonder who pays for the trips - the leaders summoned or the leaders summoning colleagues. Most political parties do not make known the amount they spend every year on such foreign trips, and indeed whether they have funds to pay for such exercises. There is also no dearth of visas for the politicians. All this is enough to make ordinary mortals sizzle with envy.

email: karachi_notebook@hotmail.com.