India on Pakistani television

Throughout the months of July and August 2008  the news in India, mostly bad, kept the country in the news on Pakistan’s television channels. The blasts in Kabul which killed an Indian diplomat and an officer among others, were followed by bombings in Bangalore and Ahmedabad later in July.  Kashmir was on the boil throughout these two months, on account of the agitation in Jammu over the issue of land for the Amarnath Shrine Board. In the third week of July the trust vote in the Indian parliament on the survival of the current government  took place and was avidly watched in Pakistan. And in August as the agitation in Kashmir intensified and a leader  was killed, it made news in Pakistan.

Who delivers news from India on  Pakistani channels? Indian reporters, because the channels have arrangements with Indian channels, as Dawn News does with CNN IBN. Who gives the commentary on panel discussions on these channels? Both Indians and Pakistanis. As we saw with the coverage which appeared in India when Pakistan was  in turmoil, the misrepresentation of one country in the media of another is less when the sources of news are in the country where it breaks. But the discussions which follow any major news event allow for other perspectives to come in.      

 In the case of Pakistan the exception was PTV which was far less inclined to put Indian journalists’ voices on air. Its Kashmir coverage in July and August featured interviews with politicians in Kashmir, such as Yasin Malik of the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front, and Hurriyat leaders, all of whom painted a suitable grim picture of how things were in the Valley. Dawn News however did speak to journalists in Kashmir. The death of Shiekh Abdul Aziz in Kashmir was described as martyrdom and run on all the private news channels in August    

Since this period in 2008 was one of constant terror on the subcontinent with blasts on both sides of the border, the talk on television centred on why India was blaming the ISI in Pakistan when both countries were victims, and on whether the peace process could continue through such periods of  paranoia.  

When the Kabul blasts took place and President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan quickly blamed the ISI, there was hurt and anger among Pakistani TV commentators. Since the Indian government  had refrained from accusing anyone immediately, the anger was directed at Karzai. And some resentment was expressed at finger pointing statements in the Indian media. Indus Vision TV’s programme ‘Khuli Baat’ with Shaheen Salahuddin  had first Commodore Uday Bhaskar and then journalist Kuldip Nayar on the show, on July 9, 2008, two days after the blasts. The first was very diplomatic, saying the Indian mood was one of anger and anguish, that the finger pointing in the media was unfortunate but the media had its own momentum, and that the Indian government had been circumspect. He said, " I share the view of many Pakistanis who are similarly anguished."

The anchor reminded him that Pakistan has had its share of bomb blasts, and then wanted to know whether India-Pakistan relations would be affected, and whether the dialogue would remain on track. The discussion turned in the same programme to insurgency in India, as if to suggest that Pakistan was not responsible for all the violence in India. When Bhaskar went off the show Kuldip Nayar came on and was a little more blunt. Who are they blaming, the anchor wanted to know. ISI, he said. "Our perception is that it cannot be without the ISI." Perception not reality, the anchor asked. Between the  Indian hook ups  one of the two Pakistani panelists gave vent to his anger and anguish at the role his country was cast in.

He launched into  Hamid Karzai. "Every time he blames Pakistan", he said. "Despicable attack on India but  Hamid Karzai is always piling on to Pakistan, Enough is enough, if we have self respect we should not take this from Hamid Karzai any more."  The anchor brought up the seven blasts in Pakistan which occurred around the same time, in Karachi, reiterating a point she has made just earlier, that Pakistan was a  victim too. The panelist who was sore, then launched into the Indian intelligence agency RAW’s  (Research and Analysis Wing) role in building up the Tamil Tigers.

When Indo-Pak talks took place in Delhi, Indian reporters and commentators  appeared on Dawn News on July 22, on Saima Mohsin’s show Newseye,  to say that the atmosphere was "vitiated", in the wake of the Kabul blasts. Former  foreign secretary Kanwar Sibal  said it clearly undermined the peace process. Later on the show a former Pakistani ambassador, Shahid Amin  came on to launch into the trend of Indian accusations about the ISI. It was a knee jerk reaction on India’s part, he said, making the by now familiar point that Pakistani leaders too have been victims of terror, given the unsuccessful attempts on President Musharraf’s life and the successful one resulting in the assassination of  Benazir Bhutto. "They (India) always start by finger pointing, and then they backtrack," he said.  

He made the additional point that the Indian "resistance movement in Kashmir" is independent, but they (India) blame Pakistan. He went to suggest that at a time when India was having a trust vote in Parliament it would  not do for the ruling coalition to be seen as being "conciliatory" to Pakistan, therefore they were playing to the gallery but in reality, going ahead with the peace process.

By the end of this show the news came that the Manmohan Singh government has won the trust vote. "it does look like Singh is king in India," said the anchor.

She then brought on an Indian commentator to discuss the impact of this development on the civilian nuclear deal. Did he think it would go through? The interesting thing here was the choice of commentator, well known anti nuclear activist  Praful Bidwai. He immediately expressed grave doubts about the deal going through. (Eventually it did.) One cannot help wondering about the choice of commentator, was it out of ignorance about Bidwai’s position on the nuclearisation issue, or because he would tell a Pakistani audience what it wanted to hear?

Where commentary is concerned it becomes clear from a scan  of news related programmes that Indian accusations about the ISI are taken with less than equanimity, defensive positions among  the Pakistan intelligentsia become apparent. But Indian commentators tend to be diplomatic when on Pakistan television, underplaying the accusations.