[The drama
is still unfolding. But few doubt that it has already wounded the integrity of
the buccaneering Supreme Court chief justice,Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry,
who faces sharp criticism of his judgment that could threaten his job. And it
has raised pressing questions for the burgeoning television news channels,
which have acquired great influence in Pakistani public life but now face
accusations of becoming an entrenched part of what is wrong with the country.]
By Declan Walsh
For a week, the country has been gripped by a drumroll of
revelations: lurid corruption accusations against the family of the populist
chief justice; dramatic television appearances by his billionaire accuser;
angry judges threatening legal action against a major television station; and a
leaked video exposing sham journalism at its worst.
The drama is still unfolding. But few doubt that it has
already wounded the integrity of the buccaneering Supreme Court chief justice,Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry,
who faces sharp criticism of his judgment that could threaten his job. And it
has raised pressing questions for the burgeoning television news channels,
which have acquired great influence in Pakistani public life but now face
accusations of becoming an entrenched part of what is wrong with the country.
“The credibility of the electronic media is at stake,” said
Raza Rumi, policy director of the Jinnah Institute, a policy group in Islamabad
For now, the scandal is focused on Dunya News, a major
television channel. On Friday, the Supreme Court ordered an inquiry of Dunya
after it broadcast an interview with Malik Riaz Hussain, a real estate
developer who claims to have given $3.7 million in bribes to Chief Justice Chaudhry’s son
Arsalan Iftikhar in the hope of swaying court cases.
What shocked ordinary Pakistanis was not the interview —
Mr. Hussain had already made similar accusations in court — but rather evidence
that it had been rigged. Leaked studio footage, shot just before the program
went live and during breaks, showed the hosts, Meher Bokhari and Mubashir
Luqman, chatting cozily with Mr. Hussain, discussing the questions and priming
his answers. “Why don’t you start talking about it yourself, otherwise it will
seem planted, which it is,” Ms. Bokhari is seen telling him in Urdu.
The other host, meanwhile, takes a call from a son of Prime
Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani — whom Mr. Chaudhry has pursued unstintingly — and
hands his phone to Mr. Hussain.
The scandal has perturbed many Pakistanis because the
television revolution is one of the bright spots of the past decade. As
regulations were relaxed, the channels shot to prominence during the struggle
for democracy in 2007. TV reporters offered urgent coverage of angry judges and
lawyers as they surged through the streets that year, backed by huge crowds
seeking new freedoms and the end of Gen. Pervez Musharraf’s military-led
government.
Since then, television has become an important element of
Pakistani politics. Every evening, millions of people watch the evening chat
shows, which offer a racy mix of breaking news, bare-knuckle debate and spicy
conspiracy theories. The TV anchors who preside over this gladiatorial arena,
many of them women, are considered celebrities and remunerated accordingly: one
senior television executive, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said
salaries reach $32,000 a month, in a country with a per-capita income below
$250 a month.
Television coverage has made politicians more responsive to
public opinion, opened new debates on previously taboo topics and introduced a
new level of accountability — even among the all-powerful military. The news
shows have helped sway public opinion at crucial junctures: in 2009, video of a
Pakistani Taliban fighter whipping a young woman shored up public opinion for a
military drive against the militant group in the Swat Valley
But the television revolution has also, in some respects,
been bad news for Pakistan
Some shows have given an unchallenged platform to
extremists like Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, the founder of the militant group
Lashkar-e-Taiba, for whom the United States
Controversy also surrounds the anchors, some of whom view
themselves as players on the national stage rather than impartial observers of
its machinations.
Ms. Bokhari, who was co-presenter of the Dunya program,
billed as a special transmission, accused Salmaan Taseer, the governor of
Punjab, of blasphemy on air in December 2010; days later Mr. Taseer’s bodyguard
shot him dead for the same reason. In January, Maya Khan, a morning television
host, caused outrage by starting a drive to roust dating couples from a public park in Karachi
The industry’s internal unity has crumbled, however, in the
face of Mr. Hussain’s accusations. Since last week, two senior presenters have
engaged in mudslinging on Twitter, accusing each other of taking bribes. Dunya
News has blamed a rival, Geo TV, for it woes and issued a statement accusing it
of conspiring with “nefarious elements.”
The chief justice’s predicament had also drawn battle lines
between the stations. Geo has vigorously supported Mr. Chaudhry, while others
have taken a more critical stance.
“The media is taking quite a battering,” said Matiullah
Jan, an investigative reporter who once presented a show on corruption and
malpractice in the news media. “In the absence of self-accountability, the
problem is going out of the control.”
But, Mr. Jan added, the Supreme Court was making a mistake
in using the news media’s shortcomings to deflect attention from its own
corruption scandals. “After all, the courts used the media to belittle
Parliament and politicians for years,” he said.
Legal experts agree.“The moral authority of the chief
justice has taken a beating, no doubt,” said Babar Sattar, a senior lawyer.
“Its consequences are going to continue for months.”
With judges in crisis and journalists in the dock, some
analysts worry that a governance vacuum is forming that could encourage the
military to step in. But others insist that the only way to unravel the tangle
of politics, money, business and the law is to clear the air, no matter how
painful.
“There is a giant web of conflicts of interest that we need
to escape from,” Mr. Jan said. “The chief justice has to lead the way.”
FIGHT OVER POST TESTS CONGRESS PARTY’S METTLE
[But for the past week, after the governing Indian National Congress Party floated his name as the party’s likely choice for president, “some political leaders had suggested that such a move might actually split the fragile coalition national government,” Mr. Yardley wrote.]
 |
| B Mathur/ReutersFrom left: Defense Minister A.K. Antony, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee and United Progress Alliance (U.P.A.) chairperson Sonia Gandhi in posed for pictures after naming Mr. Mukherjee as the presidential candidate. |
“Ordinarily, Pranab Mukherjee might be considered a shoo-in for the
largely ceremonial position of president of India
At 76, “he has spent a half century in Indian politics,” often
appearing on the global stage, and “he is well prepared for the elder statesman
role,” Mr. Yardley wrote.
But for the past week, after the governing Indian National Congress
Party floated his name as the party’s likely choice for president, “some
political leaders had suggested that such a move might actually split the
fragile coalition national government,” Mr. Yardley wrote.
“One coalition partner, Mamata Banerjee, openly opposed Mr.
Mukherjee’s candidacy, and another key ally, Mulayam Singh Yadav, also appeared
to be against him,” he wrote. “Embarrassment seemed unavoidable.”
So on Friday, when Sonia Gandhi, the Congress Party president, formally
put forward Mr. Mukherjee’s name, “a collective frenzy gripped the political
elite: What would happen?” he wrote.
Read the full article.