My Debut in Journalism The Pakistan Observer, Dacca, 12 January, 1967
I wonder if this can be called a new venture. It is not my first shot at journalism. Some years ago, during my student days, I made my debut in this field, and said “Hello” to this art of communication. I do not aspire to be the Walter Lippmann of Pakistan, although I would feel honored to qualify for membership of the talented fraternity to which he belongs.
Let us begin by saying that the press has an increasingly important role to play-in further enlightening an already conscious public opinion and in the evaluation of national and international events which are getting more and more interwoven. In different societies, journalism has taken different shapes. Yet it has some common bonds which stretch from one end of the globe to the other.
In England and Europe, and across the Atlantic in the United States, journalism is of a high standard and has acquired a rare sophistication. Our familiarity with the English language makes it possible for us to draw lessons from Anglo-American journalism. It has influenced us greatly. It has excited our thoughts and given shape to some of our ideas. Because of our links with Western civilization, although we are not familiar with the French language, we are aware of the high standards of French journalism. Newspapers like the “Le Monde” and the “Le Figaro” are well known for their reporting and comments of great vision and depth.
Penetrating analyses of events by eminent Western writers benefit society as a whole and also governments dealing with vital national questions, such as those relating to war and peace, and economic and social development.
In Africa and Asia, by and large, journalism has not yet firmly planted its feet; it is as turbulent and erratic as are the conditions in Asia and Africa.
For want of adequate information, we, in Pakistan, cannot speak with full knowledge about journalism in Latin America but, I dare say, the journalism of the Latins is influenced both by their countries’ proximity to the United States as well as by the crucible of rapidly changing events in South America. It is more than likely that it has many common features with our standards for the simple reason that so many of the problems are of a similar nature.
Indeed, the standard and style of journalism is but a reflection of the prevailing realities of each society. Journalism follows and creates trends. It is a pace-setter which cannot remain indifferent to the mood and music of the people. It has to gallop with the flow of events and ride on the tide that disturbs the status quo.
Journalism in our times, more than in the past, is written both in ink and in blood. It has shown courage against overwhelming odds. At times it has also demonstrated meek passivity. Journalism is the prisoner of conditions but it also holds the key to the cell. Many would hold that journalism of high caliber cannot exist without the freedom of the press. The function of the press is not only to record the dry events of the day, which can perhaps be done even more efficaciously by television and radio, but to expose, guide, anticipate and to evaluate.
Journalism, in other words, is not a mere recorder or a post office or a channel of communication. Its functions are infinitely more important. To perform these functions properly, it is necessary to speak out boldly and to declare the truth even if this embarrasses and hurts.
European and Anglo-American journalism has acquired high standards after a very long struggle and its quality is only a reflection of an attained status. But, above all, it can be argued with force and feeling that the high standard reached in those parts have come out of the impetus and stimulation provided by free thought under the constitutional protection of that sanctified expression :freedom of speech. We are not unmindful of the argument that in those societies, on account of technological and cultural advancement, a self-evolved discipline has been imposed on journalism. Many a journalist, if he is not to toy with his conscience, prefers to put away his pen rather than write against his conscience and break the code. Certain things are simply “not done.” In addition to a self-imposed code and rules of restraint brought about by maturity, who does not know that powerful economic influences operate to confine the freedom of expression? I am familiar with far too many press briefings of government officials in Europe and in the United States to ignore the hand of government guidance. The official briefings instruct and regulate the printed and spoken word in the news media within the dimensions of public interest and national security, albeit with discretion. There is then no such thing as absolute freedom of the press even in the most advanced and democratic societies.
As much as absolute freedom of the press is injurious to national interest, so also, the suppression of this freedom is even more injurious. There are certain things which can be swept under the rug and there are certain things which just cannot be put under it. If you put a lid on the mounting frustrations and feelings of a people, the environment acquires a terrible odor which spreads far beyond national frontiers. Arguments on freedom of expression, its meaning and its benefits can be endless. Not only political and economic reasons can be advanced but even philosophical submissions are available in abundance to argue one way or the other until “all the cows come home.”
Of the many reasons for the excellent quality of Western journalism let us admit that the chief is the freedom of expression. Western journalism, with all its drawbacks, has attained a standard which, on the whole, is to be admired.
We are not entirely unaware of the state of affairs of journalism in Africa and Asia as well as in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. In many of the countries of these vast regions journalism has made great progress. The United Arab Republic, for instance, has made impressive strides. It is not proper to mention names but it is well known that Hasnain Heykal of Al Ahram, Cairo, has rendered valuable services to journalism. This eminent writer has lit a glowing spark in the realm of ideas and in provoking thought.
The Soviet Union and China stand in a special class. These great nations have produced many celebrated writers. They do not write in a manner which in the West is described as “freedom of expression” and yet their contributions in promoting creative thought are undeniable. The journalists of these nations write with feeling and create a mood which cannot come out of drip-dry journalism. What then is their motivation? In the Western countries, it is the competitive spirit which throws up the best talent. But even with the absence of the competitive system there are countries whose contribution in this field is remarkable. The motivation for journalism in such a system is not the freedom of expression, in the Western sense, but the ideological objectives of the state. In genuinely ideological states, journalists, like all the other citizens in different professions, make their finest creative contribution under the inspiration of their ideologies.
In other words, if journalism is to be productive, if it is to have value for society and if it is to make a wholesome contribution, it must function either under a system of freedom of the press in the Western sense or it must be motivated by the formidable engine of ideology. One or the other condition is essential for the promotion of good journalism. If a state does not permit free expression and is barren of ideology, its journalism will be equally barren. Like all other forms of life it, too, must suffocate and wither away.
Journalism must be permitted to find its natural level. We are no exception to this process. We have seen our own journalism going through different phases. In the past, there was a free-for-all approach with many unsavoury features which were no more than a reflection of the general conditions in our country.
Like many other things, our journalism over-stretched itself and was put on a leash. At present, journalism in Pakistan is going through a difficult transitory period. Ultimately, it is bound to find its moorings. It has already subjected itself to certain voluntary restraints in addition to those imposed by law. If tomorrow all restraints were to be removed, there is little doubt that a certain amount of self-imposed restriction would continue. This by itself is a sign of maturity.
Our journalism in the English language is at the crossroads. The great names which inspire are not many and their number is dwindling. A few of them have left their profession and found employment in more alluring vocations. Our journalism may have more set-backs in the future but this does not mean that quality cannot pick up again provided the environment is conducive for its development.
Journalism in Urdu and Bengali, and some of the regional languages, has shown marked improvement. This is a happy development. There is, however, room for improvement, especially in the field of selective reporting and in editorials which throw out ideas and try to analyze world and national events. Too much of our press coverage is taken up by down-to-earth reporting. Newspapers and journals are full of clichés. There is more than necessary space given to officialdom and to printing photographs of ceremonies being opened and closed. Too much space is given to sensational news, to texts of routine messages and to arrivals and departures, not to speak of marriages! Some try to write between the lines but do it with a hatchet. A style has still to emerge, depth has to be found. This is slowly coming under the grinding wheels of evolution, especially in the Urdu and Bengali press.
To promote high standards, among other prerequisites, the conditions of working journalists call for betterment. The profession has to be respected and, unfortunately, respect in our society seldom comes without status. Once the interaction of all the required forces matures, it will be possible for us to make our distinct contribution in greater measure. We have produced many outstanding writers, some of whom have few rivals in other parts. Hamid Nizami and Faiz Ahmed Faiz, to mention only two, set ablaze a trail of glory. Both these pioneers have made contributions and set styles which require emulation.
The problems facing journalism are multitudinous but to overcome them, it is necessary not only to create proper conditions for working journalists and for journalism but to permit critical self-analysis. I speak from the outside and have no motive to pour out prejudice, and I speak in good faith as a friend of journalists—that valiant band of patriots.
I have picked up my pen only to engage myself usefully and to share some of my thoughts with my countrymen. By birth, I am a zamindar, but so far I have given little time to my hereditary profession. The land is the mother of our state. The produce that comes out of our beautiful fields is our strength. Like journalism, agriculture also has many contradictions. Along with antiquated forms of cultivation, we see today tractors and machines in operation. As in the case of journalism, our most important profession, so to speak, is going through a critical period of transition. Once the transition in agriculture is over, we hope to be a powerful, self-reliant and happy society not only in this basic field but also in others including, of course, journalism.
My education has brought me into the profession of law but like my encounter with agriculture, my engagement with the law has been desultory. I have all the high academic qualifications to give my full time to the great profession of law but for a variety of reasons I have not been able to do it, I respect and value the legal profession but it is not a passion with me. Now I hope to find the time not only for agriculture and for law, but also for journalism. Here again, not in any methodical and regular sense, but only to keep the mind and body active and in good shape. Law is a great profession. In all systems, it must take an exalted place. A society in which law is raw and inarticulate is a society which is barbaric and brutal. Law is a great refinement, its weakness a great curse. The rule of law is the strongest shield of civilization. It is the duty of the citizen and of the state to strengthen this mighty pillar of the social order. Those who seek the protection of the law know its value. Those who keep the law clean are equally aware of its benefits in governing a people with justice. Our country has many able and diligent lawyers. These outstanding men have rendered great services to our new state and they are bound to make greater contributions in the future. Many changes have taken place in the legal system. We are still in the process of evolving an indigenous system. These upheavals of transition are coming into conflict with the old established norms but sooner or later, out of this clash, a proper synthesis will emerge.
Although by birth I am an agriculturist and by education a lawyer, I have had something to do with politics. It is politics above all that inspires me and kindles in me the flame of a lasting romance. Politics is a superior science and a fine art. It is the final arbiter of society, the ultimate architect of a just equilibrium. Our country has had to face many political problems but it is in this field alone that an eventual crystallization will render the most valuable service to our people. Politics must be clean. It must not be based on negative considerations and rest on sloganism and on the lure of banditry. Too many people are understandably suspicious of politics. In many ways the politicians have failed badly. Tragically, we have played politics with politics. We have soiled a great an.
No longer will people repose confidence in politicians who exploit their sentiments and abandon principles at the wink of favors.
A new era is emerging in the political life of the nation. The politicians of Pakistan are facing a crucial new test as destiny stands at the dawn of a New Year. A new look arid a new style will have to emerge. The old ways will no longer appeal to the people. It is no longer sufficient to be a fluent parliamentarian and an expert in repartee and to know when to make “a point of order”, or to heckle and hound. A new all-round approach will have to be found in every facet of politics. The hand must reach the ground, the eye must perceive the sub-surface movements and the ear be able to hear the sound of music in the far distance. Crescendos of “Zindabad” and warm ovations at public meetings are not going to be the final tests of political acumen.
Drawing room intrigue has reached a nauseating limit which the people will not tolerate in the future. The people want a better and more dignified life. If the politician cannot respond to the emerging challenge in the contemporary sense, his guile and his brilliance will be of no avail. It is no longer a question of “make and break” or, as the saying goes in Urdu, “jor tor.” It is no longer possible to find solutions to national problems by marching leaders off to jails and in the easy method of terror and repression. Terror and repression have never been the final answers to political problems. On the contrary, such methods have led to greater complications. The administration should not be intimidated nor should the administration intimidate. Criticism must be genuine and solutions should be just and realistic. In a free and independent society, there is no room for bitter personal animosity. The line between government and opposition should not be based on vendetta and abuse, but on a sincere difference in principles.
There is so much in common between law and politics, and between journalism and politics. But politics is such a total subject, that, in order to be a politician, it is not only necessary to be born with the art but to be able to understand many subjects. A politician must have the sense of timing. He must understand the mood and aspirations of the people. A politician must be a builder, a connoisseur of public moods, and have the ability to give expression to the culture of a free people He must know how to suffer, knew how to cry for the sufferings of the people and shed tears for their miseries. He must know how to smile when the people are happy. He must know the meaning of pain and pleasure, if he is to go to the heart of the problems and to the hearts of the people. He must understand economic and military matters and be composed and constructive in emergencies. He must know how to operate in broad daylight and be able to walk in utter darkness. And above all, he should have the integrity and the strength to uphold a cause in the face of impossible situations. He must have courage to give courage to his people and to say ‘no’ to them even when that ‘no’ is not popular.
Politics is a splendored thing. It covers much that is written and not written in books. A politician must be patient and he must also dare. At times it is not patience but risk and daring which are required. But the risk and daring must not smack of adventurism because it is fatal to play with the future of a whole people who repose confidence in their leaders. Journalism and politics stand together. A good journalist must have a good knowledge of politics and a good appreciation of political events to be able to evaluate and to analyze.
Politics of an abiding character, like journalism and other creative arts, has an invaluable role to play either in a democracy or in an ideological state. There is no place for politicians in a state which is neither democratic nor ideological. Democratic conditions and the struggle to attain them have given birth to a galaxy of immortal names. Mankind has reached great heights by the force released by democratic ideals. So permanent is the attachment of the individual to democracy that the rights it proclaims have been called inalienable and inherent.
Parallel to this phenomenon, history has seen, especially in the last hundred years, the earth-shaking developments of the ideological movements, whose interpretation is different from that of democracy as it is popularly understood. Mighty movements have been launched by people on the surrender of classical civil liberties. What moves the people to soaring heights in such societies is not the flame of individual liberty but the fires lit by ideology which calls for a long period of sacrifices by individuals for collective justice.
Western institutional democracy has held sway over Asia and been responsible for many salutary developments. It has inspired our people to wage a heroic struggle for national independence. It has influenced our thoughts and actions and provided blue-prints for the future. But with all its admitted virtues, Western institutional democracy is also responsible for considerable confusion and dislocation in Asia and Africa. John Lock and Stuart Mill with all their acknowledged contributions were born neither in Lahore nor in Jakarta. Our leaders who came out of Oxford and Cambridge, and even Sandhurst, were imbued with Western democratic ideals. They grasped the concept and sought to apply it to our conditions. What we really bad to do was to begin with a clean slate and evolve a system from the foundation of our conditions instead of applying anything from above.
India has democratic institutions but today India is in shambles. Its democracy is unnatural. Despite all the propaganda and pageantry, India’s democracy has failed because democracy is alien to India’s philosophy and mentality. Democracy cannot arise out of inequality and intolerance. The philosophy of India arises out of exploitation and domination and defies both democracy and ideology. Neither democracy nor ideology can motivate India’s polity.
People have willingly surrendered their inalienable democratic rights only in the pursuit of ideological objectives which promise justice and dignity.
Ideological objectives have to be essentially political in purpose and not based exclusively on economic considerations although economics may be the premier wagon to the engine of politics.
The people must not only know the reasons for which they are called upon to curtail their rights but must be convinced of the bona fides of leaders. People cannot be expected to make a sacrifice of their political rights indefinitely without a sufficient collective purpose. Even an ideological state pledges political freedom after the attainment of the ideological ends. People know the course of history. Each day brings with it greater enlightenment, no longer will people tolerate an abatement of their political rights for arbitrary or narrow ends and for non-national purposes.
Thus, a regime will have the cooperation of its people either in a democracy in which individual rights are protected or in an ideological state, in which civil liberties are suspended until the attainment of the high political objectives of common benefit to the people. No other station stands between the two terminals. The willing cooperation of a people cannot come out of a contamination of systems. It is feasible for an ideological state to rest on a democratic foundation but an admixture of the two systems cannot prevail successfully. It is neither possible to democratize a dictatorship nor to make democracy a dictatorship.
The banner must be clean and proclaim either a democratic or an ideological state and, if the people’s support matters and is sought, a third choice cannot be considered for the banner.
My association with politics is rooted in my environment. I come from a politically saturated district in which my family has played a prominent part. Politics was the milk given to me at birth but that was a politics of a different nature. As I have said, old ways must give way to new ones. Situations change
and it is essential that the methods and the ways to meet them should change also. If it had not been for the environment in which I was born and brought up, and if it was not for the opportunity which catapulted me into a high political office of the country, at the young age of thirty, I wonder what profession I would have chosen?
Left to myself, and if the compulsions of events and environment had not had such a decisive say, I may have gone into architecture. I have always been greatly interested in architecture. It is a subject which has engaged my attention even when I have been in the whirlwind of politics. I remember that when as a young boy of about 6 or 7, I first visited Moenjodaro, I was completely enchanted by that place. I went there again and again and spent many hours admiring the precision and the symmetry of the architectural feats of the builders of that civilization thousands of years ago. It had a spill-binding effect on me and ever since those unforgettable days, with my first encounter in the field of engineering and architecture, I have taken a growing and abiding interest in that subject. Later, in my salad days, when I saw the marvel of the Taj Mahal, I pledged an eternal love for the sublime an of architecture. I recall the fight within me when, as a university student, I spent many hours listening to lectures on architecture instead of on my own subject. My roommate, who was a Parsi friend from school days, was a student of architecture and I learnt a great deal about it from him.
I was thrilled when I was called upon to be the Minister in charge of Islamabad. Unfortunately, my association with Islamabad was too brief. It was at a party in honor of the Iranian and Turkish Heads of State in the Iranian Embassy at Karachi when I suggested to the President that we must immediately give a name to the new capital. I made this suggestion because I fell that without a name the capital would remain intangible until its completion. We thought of many names, and I suggested ‘Markazabad’ but eventually it was decided to call it ‘Islamabad’. The name is not all that important but it was essential to give the capital a name to concretize it even before a single brick was laid. The site of the new capital is breath-taking in its beauty. It has an excellent landscape but unfortunately it is being built hurriedly and hideously. The way it is being built has caused me great torment. The same fate has befallen some of the lesser projects like the K.D.A, schemes in Karachi. Clifton is getting the ugly look of a P.E.C.H. Society. We seem to be enemies of open spaces. We want to build hideous edifices on any vacant plot.
What I would like to submit is that there is a direct connection between architecture and politics. The architect, like the politician, must take the environment into account. He must have a comprehension of time and space. He must know the climate and the soil and build accordingly. He must provide not only for the present but also for the future. His building must be acceptable to the occupants’ taste as well as to those who see it from outside. It must be so built as to accommodate comfortably but not wastefully. It must provide for facilities not only for the occupants and the visitors but also those who would inherit it. Like politics, architecture must have character and style and it must be done according to the budget and the means of the occupant. It calls for an understanding of human nature. It calls for a specialized temperament and above all, it must be according to a plan. There can be no architecture without a plan, as there can be no politics without a plan. The architect, like the politician, must construct and like the politician he must set beautiful and realistic standards.
After all then, it seems that all roads lead to politics as they led to Rome. If there is a similarity between architecture and politics, and according to me there is a striking similarity, my interest in architecture arises out of my interest in politics. As I have seen the two meet. I feel my knowledge of architecture like that of law, has been of good use to me in politics.
I have rambled from place to place and written candidly. Let us welcome the sound of bells of another year which is likely to be more exciting than the one that has ended. Time and with it events are moving faster and faster. The New Year has introduced a new situation which they say may merge the old and the new. No heaven came down to earth with E.B.D.O, and no hell is likely to descend with, its end. But as a new page is being turned in an old book, let us end on a hopeful note.
The Government not so long ago released a number of leaders without any damage to its authority. There would be words of praise if the leaders of East Pakistan are set free to join the many others who, after eight long years, are back in the political arena.
I have written for fun and friends and cannot say if it will be possible to write regularly, or if I will be able to write again after this initial debut. I do not know whether this meandering approach will have any appeal for the readers. Let us see how it goes. If what I have written is uninteresting, I only have to throw up my hands and say that this was not only my first “Hello” to journalism but also my farewell.