Author: T V R Shenoy
Publication: Rediff on Net
Date: January 29, 2002
Was it Jefferson or Lincoln who
described the journalist as "a disturber of the peace, a roiler of nations"?
Neither man is a hero in a dictatorship, but this is one description which
has often been taken all too literally. Several members of the media fraternity
have been jailed like common criminals for doing their job sincerely. And
this brings up the case of the unfortunate Daniel Pearl.
Who is Mr Pearl? Some of you might
have seen his name in print from time to time. He is the South Asia correspondent
of The Wall Street Journal based in Mumbai. A few days ago, he was abducted
while doing a story from Pakistan. And therein lies a tale...
In relating what follows, I would
like to stress that I have never met Pearl. But I happen to know that Pearl,
though based in Mumbai, knew certain people in Delhi (I shall not be more
specific than that). Through this person (or persons) Pearl gained access
to a report from Indian intelligence. This report gave the lie to claims
made by the Pakistani authorities about clamping down on militant outfits.
Pearl did not immediately swallow
this report. He insisted, as any responsible journalist should, that he
would try to verify the tale. Specifically, he wanted to find out about
the Bahawalpur connection for himself.
Bahawalpur, for the benefit of those
who do not know, was the capital of a princely state in British India,
noted chiefly for the eccentricity of some of its nawabs. It lies south
of Multan, strategically located at a point close to the Indian states
of Punjab and Rajasthan. More to the point, it is also, as Pearl found
out, the operational headquarters of the Jaish-e-Mohammed.
On January 1, 2002, a story filed
by Pearl from Bahawalpur featured prominently on the front page of the
Asian edition of The Wall Street Journal. The headline summed it up: 'Militant
Groups in Pakistan Thrive Despite Crackdown'. The sub-head read: 'Jaish-e-Mohammed
Says It Is Still Operating After Police Detained Some Staff'.
The report proceeded to make several
highly damaging accusations about the Pakistani government's efforts to
rein in terrorism. Jaish-e-Mohammed representatives said the police "left
behind enough people to keep the office running". When Pearl visited Bahawalpur,
a "nearby Jaish-e-Mohammad regional center was still operating Thursday,
its traditional recruiting day. The group's name has been painted over,
but posters praising holy war are still hung inside. And a bank account
that Jaish-e-Mohammad uses to solicit contributions remains open, despite
a November order by Pakistan's central bank freezing the group's account."
Ordinarily, one might have dismissed
this as nothing more than the standard Indian foreign office press release.
But this is something more -- an independent report by a correspondent
belonging to one of the most respected media groups in the United States.
Having learned what was going on in Bahawalpur so openly, it was on the
cards that Daniel Pearl would try to dig a little deeper. And this possibility
posed a problem for several people...
Some days ago, Pearl was seized
by person or persons unknown. The kidnapping has been attributed to terrorists.
An anonymous message sent to the police and the media in Pakistan accuses
the journalist of being a CIA agent and promises to mete out the same "inhumane"
treatment to him as to the Al Qaeda prisoners being held by the United
States. Is there more to the story of this supposed kidnapping than meets
the eye?
I was in Washington shortly after
Pearl's story came out and can personally testify to the embarrassment
and rage it caused to the Pakistani representatives (as well as to those
Americans in high places who continue to turn a blind eye to militant activities
in Pakistan). But the Musharraf government certainly could not afford to
detain or expel an American journalist, least of all one representing a
journal as influential as The Wall Street Journal.
I am sure General Musharraf himself
would never do something as silly as arrange for Pearl's convenient disappearance.
But is he completely in charge of the situation? In his speech on January
12, the Pakistani leader regretfully admitted that the authority of the
State had deteriorated. A section of Indian intelligence suspects that
the hapless journalist has been spirited away by the Inter-Services Intelligence;
others believe that it is actually terrorists who carried out the operation.
Whichever it is, it underlines a couple of facts.
First, the fact that an American
journalist of some repute can suddenly go missing in Pakistan is a reminder
of the professional hazards of journalism in that country. Second, it questions
the assumption that General Musharraf is in complete charge of his nation.
Some of my friends have wondered
why the Western media has handled India so much more roughly than they
do Pakistan. This has often been put down to the traditional leftist bias
of the media reacting to the fact that a Bharatiya Janata Party-led government
rules India today. Others say it is an implicit racism reacting to a new
assertiveness in India's conduct of her affairs. I mean no disrespect to
my foreign colleagues, but could there be a third reason, namely fear?
Journalists can write anything they
choose about India without fear of retribution. (And many do just that!)
But, as the case of the unhappy Daniel Pearl dramatically demonstrates,
honest reporting on Pakistan can be a dangerous affair. Irrespective of
whether the Inter-Services Intelligence or terrorists are at fault, Mr
Pearl has been silenced quite effectively, has he not?