Posts Tagged ‘GEO TV’

Pakistan media declare war on Indian counterparts – By Nirupama Subramanian – The Hindu, Chennai, India

December 1, 2008

Pakistan media declare war on Indian counterparts

Nirupama Subramanian

Indian media accused of not demanding for evidence

“They are overcommitted to projecting India as a success story”

ISLAMABAD: The escalating tensions between India and Pakistan over the Mumbai attacks have led to the declaration of hostilities in unexpected quarters – Pakistani media has declared a virtual war on Indian media for its “knee-jerk” finger-pointing across the border, and its unquestioning acceptance of the Indian government’s “Pakistan-link” theory.

Most Pakistanis are angry and upset about the Indian allegations, which they believe are “unsubstantiated”. Even the Indian government, whose highest officials have made the allegation in unambiguous terms, have not come in for as much flak as the messenger, the assumption being that governments will say what they have to, but it is the duty of the media to question.

Leading the charge against the India media are the Pakistani television channels, with panel discussions shows devoted exclusively to the coverage of the Mumbai attacks by the Indian media.

Even on talk shows about the impact of the attacks on the relations between the two countries, among the first questions that anchors are shooting off are: “Do you think the India media should have pointed a finger at Pakistan within such a short time, and without any evidence? Why do we see this knee-jerk response every time some terrorist incident takes place in India?”

One of the big successes of the peace process since 2004 was the greater understanding and camaraderie between the media of the two countries, thanks to frequent interactions. But the smoke and gunfire of Mumbai has overshadowed even that.

Top Pakistani journalists are asking why the Indian media, more specifically the electronic media, have been so willing to accept the government theory that the attackers came from Pakistan. Top Pakistani journalists are asking why the Indian media, more specifically the electronic media, have been so willing to accept the government theory that the attackers came from Pakistan.

They are dismissive of reports in the Indian press that the terrorists had links with Lashkar-e-Taiba, or that they landed in Mumbai in a boat from Karachi. Instead, they are asking why these reports are not demanding the government for evidence of these allegations.

“Too nationalistic”
On Dawn News, three top guns of the Pakistani media – anchors Hamid Mir, Talat Hussain and Nasim Zehra – dissected the coverage in an hour-long programme that was aired both on Saturday and Sunday.

Their scathing conclusion – Indian media are “too nationalistic”, “smug”, they told “lies” or at best “half-truths”, “did not ask questions”, resorted to “clichés” and have perfected the art of projecting Pakistan as the enemy.

A similar programme aired on Geo TV on Sunday. The feeling is widespread in the Pakistan journalistic community that the Indian media are responsible for the current tensions between the two countries and for pushing the Indian government to take on its neighbour even if it means launching a military strike. The India media have been accused of not even looking at other possibilities, such as the involvement of an Indian group in the attacks.

The new evidence in the Samjhauta Express firebombings pointing a finger at a Hindutva militant group has come up repeatedly as one reason why the Indian media should have been less “hasty” in arriving at its conclusions.

On the whole, Pakistanis — as evident from public phone-ins to talk shows — are even questioning if the entire ghastly episode was not all engineered by Indian intelligence agencies working in connivance with the U.S. to “defame” Pakistan with the intention of dismembering it.

“[The] Indian media is overcommitted to projecting India as a success story. They are not used to reporting state failures. They are used to reporting India as a country where nothing bad happens, its Army as the best thing in the world. It projects its heroes as supermen, taller than the Himlayas…So the gap between what the Indian media are committed to reporting, and the crass state failure they had to do report [in Mumbai], they ended up filling it with lies,” Mr. Hussain, a top-rated anchor with Aaj TV, told Dawn News.

On the same programme, Mr. Mir, who anchors Geo’s flagship show Capital Talk, asked why the Indian media were not asking hard questions of the Indian government.

“When Pakistani forces say they have killed five Al-Qaeda, when they say Rashid Rauf has been killed in a drone attack, Pakistani media are asking them questions — show us the bodies. But Indian media are not asking important questions.

“There are 500 nautical miles between Karachi and Gujarat, and the Indian media are saying the terrorists came in boats from Karachi. Why are they not questioning the failure of their intelligence agencies?”

Mr. Mir said the Indian media had to take responsibility of the sharp downslide in the relations between the two countries.

At a press conference, Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi too accused the Indian media of “irresponsible” conduct.

Giving himself credit for having stayed on in India for three days after the Mumbai incidents began, he said he had “engaged with their political leadership, engaged their intelligentsia, faced their media,” to explain Pakistan’s point of view.

In response to his appeal for “national unity” and his declaration that the country must “hope for the best and plan for the worst”, at least one Punjabi television channel started playing national songs from the 1965 and 1971 wars, including Noorjehan’s famous song dedicated to soldiers, “Merey watan key sajheeley jawanon”.


May 31, 2008




Saturday, May 31, 2008


There is serious flaw in not considering within proper context, Maulana Maududi’s verdict on Muslims that remained back in India, after an ‘Islamic state’ is formed where their religion and their Islamic way of life was to be protected from the kind of discriminations that were the starting point of the demand for a separate state/province for Muslims.


MM was responding to a question, the notorious kind that journalists invariably ask, more for argument and less for information. MM’s sarcastic line of argument should not be interpreted to mean that he ‘advocates’ or ‘prefers’ harsh treatment of Indian Muslims by their new ‘Hindu’ rulers. He possibly was encouraging them to appreciate the quality of religious and social life they will enjoy in the new Islamic state of Pakistan and at the same time scaring them of the dire consequences of remaining back in ‘Hindu’ India. He was all for Muslims to migrate in the best tradition of our beloved Prophet (PBUH).


At that stage, neither MM not Maulana Israr Ahmed, could have imagined that India, at least legally as per its constitution, would not become a Hindu religious state; even though in practice it already had become a Brahmin dominated state. Religious freedom to some extant was available to Indian Muslims in British rule too. But the thought of British handing effective power to highly communalised Brahmin rulers of independent India, was naturally nightmarish to practically all Muslims across the board, in terms of new religious/political changes in the country.


In the event, even though India is still highly communalised, its legal system, its constitutional safeguards to a large extent, give Indian Muslims a fair chance to rise up and even govern the country, if they can play the political game according to the new rules of the game. If a US or Israel can organise and manage a peaceful ‘regime change’ without firing a single shot; who has stopped the Muslims to get their due in their own land.


The problem with Muslims and especially with the Indian Muslim in the context of present discussion is that they just do not have what it takes to assume the role of the leader of the nation or nations. A shift of focus from the clamouring about immediate bread and butter issues to the higher level of resolve to help humanity at large could possibly bring in much better results. Islam at this juncture has so much positive to contribute to the world, that it will be a big mistake if we the Muslims should squander our energy and intellectual assets to fight internecine one-upmanship.


Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai



Indian Muslims <; 


Maulana Maududi’s Terrifying Vision for Indian Muslims


Posted: 30 May 2008 06:49 PM CDT


Maulana Maududi’s estranged disciple and Tanzeem-e-Islami chief Dr. Israr Ahmed appearing on the Jawabdeh program of GEO television in 2005 made some startling remarks about Indian Muslims. According to a published report of the program in the liberal Daily Times he reportedly said the following:


 In an Islamic state non-Muslims would be second-class citizens. He said if India decided after that to declare all Muslims second-class citizens then that would be right too. He said Muslims had fought in India on the claim that they were a different nation. There was no harm if India considered its Muslims a separate nation.[1] 


Dr. Israr Ahmed’s lack of concern for the protection of the rights of India’s Muslims is hardly surprising when looked through the prism of the views of his mentor Maulana Abul Ala Maudoodi. Both were comfortable with a possible political scenario in India where the nation’s Muslims were reduced to second class citizens.


In the often cited Munir Commission report Maulana Maududi emphatically said in reply to a query that he will have no problem if Indian Muslims were treated on par with the Malechas or “untouchables.”  He was asked the question, “If we have this form of Islamic government in Pakistan, will you permit the Hindus to base their constitution on the basis of their religion?” He reportedly replied, “I should have no objection even if the Muslims of India are treated in that form of Government as shudras and malishes and Manu’s laws are applied to them, depriving them of all share in the Government and the rights of a citizen. In fact, such a state of affairs already exists in India.”[2]


But the venerable Maulana later on denied making such a statement. In a letter to Dr. Nejatullah Siddiqi, he wrote:


There is a fair amount of distortion in things attributed to me in Munir Report. Actually, I did not say that Manu’s Dharma Shastra be introduced in India, and that I would concur with the treatment of Muslims as Mleccas and Shudras. In fact these were [Justice Muhammad] Munir Sahib’s own remarks which he attributed to me. His question was: “If you want an Islamic government, would you then agree if a Hindu government is formed in India, where Manu’s Dharma Shastra would be introduced.” What I had told him [Justice Munir] was that it is up to Hindus to decide what they wanted to do and what they did not want to do. They will not ask us what form of system they would establish. Our task is to work according to our belief and faith wherever we have the option. As to India , there the Hindus will do whatever they want to whether we agree with them or not.”


Despite the denial there are at least two other instances where the Maulana made known his contempt for Indian Muslims?  A booklet titled Jamaat-e-Islami Ki Dawat contains a speech made by Maulana Maududi on May 10, 1947. In it he says:


It appears now certain that the country will be partitioned. One portion of India will be given to the Muslim majority and the other will be controlled by the non-Muslims. In the first part (Pakistan) we shall mobilize public opinion to base Pakistan’s constitution on the Islamic laws. In the other part we will be in a minority and you (Hindus) will be in a majority. We would request you to study the lives and teachings of Ramchandra, Krishnaji, Buddha, Guru Nanak and other sages. Please study the Vedas, Puranas, Shastras and other books. And if you cull out any divine guidance from these, we would request you to base your constitution on this guidance. We would request you to treat us exactly on the lines of the teachings of your religions. We would raise no objections. [3]


Further evidence of Maulana Maududi’s disdain for Indian Muslims is evident from his following answer to a question regarding the permissibility of a Pakistani male citizen marrying an Indian Muslim female:


Answer: As far as I know the Quran’s derivative is that there can be no relations of inheritance and marriage between the residents of Darul Islam and Darul Kufr…From now on there should be no marital relations between Indian and Pakistani Muslims.”[4]


This shows that the Maulana not only disregarded the plight of Indian Muslims but also considered them unequal to Pakistani Muslims.


It is the good fortune of Indian Muslims that the founding fathers and the present rulers of   India did not heed the calls of Maulana Maududi or an Israr Ahmed. As it is the nation’s imperfect democracy has relegated the community to the most backward status. One can only imagine what would have been the scenario if a theocracy was imposed upon them.














[2] Report of the Court of Inquiry …to Enquire into the Punjab Disturbances of 1953. (Lahore: Superintendent of Government Printing, 1954), p.228. Cited in Dr. Omar Khalidi’s ‘Between Muslim Nationalists and Nationalist Muslims: Mawdudi’s Thoughts on Indian Muslims. (New Delhi: Institute of Objective Studies, 2004)


[3] Cited in S.E.Hasnain’s Indian Muslims: Challenges & Opportunities (Bombay: Lalvani Publishing House, 1968) pp.51-52.


[4] Mahnama Tarjumanul Quran, September 1951. Cited in Khalid Waheed Falahi’s Hindustan Mein Zaat Paat Aur Musalman.  p. 357.