brief reports
The press in Pakistan
The daily arrest in April and May of this year of
journalists protesting against the closure of the
Lahore edition of the Musawat newspaper
focussed world attention on the restrictions on
press freedom in Pakistan. When sentences of
whipping as well as imprisonment were imposed
by Military Courts on some of those arrested,
the reaction of outsiders was one of outrage.
However, government action against journalists,
as well as government control of the press by
using a variety of devices, is not new in Pakistan; indeed, most of the instruments used by
General Zia-ul-Haq's Martial Law regime to
control or restrain the press were freely used
by Mr Bhutto when in office and inherited by
him from his predecessors Yahya Khan and
Ayub Khan. The purpose of this article is to
summarise the methods available for controlling
the press and to indicate some of the ways in
which they are now being used by the Martial
Law regime, compared with Mr Bhutto's practice when in power.
There are basically four different methods by
which the content of the press is influenced or
controlled by the government. First by ownership of newspapers, second by the application
of economic pressure, third by the use of legal
controls and sanctions on or against the printers
and publishers of newspapers, and finally direct
action against journalists as in the case of the
Musawat protesters. It may also be that papers
not in government hands are subject to direct
censorship prior to publication. I have been
told that army officers supervise the make-up
of some newspapers but I have not been able to
check this or to establish how widespread such
control, if practised, is. I will accordingly concentrate on the four types of control set out
above.
The National Press Trust, which is a government-owned organisation, owns and operates directly a number of the more prominent
newspapers. Among these are two of the three
principal English-language newspapers, the
Pakistan Times, which has the largest circula-
tion, and the Morning News. In addition, it
owns Urdu newspapers like Mashriq, which is
published in the four provinces of Pakistan,
and Imroz. Thus by direct control the government is able to reach a large section of the
newspaper-reading public. In the elections of
1970 Mr Bhutto included in his campaign a
promise to abolish the National Press Trust,
recognising the risk to democracy arising from
government ownership of a substantial section
of the press. However, once in office the advantages of government ownership outweighed
his election pledge.
The National Press Trust is not now the only
state owner of newspapers or printers. The
newspaper Musawat was owned and controlled by the Bhutto family. It was published in
two editions, one in Karachi and the other in
Lahore, and was the biggest selling Urdu-language newspaper in Pakistan. It was the closure
of the Lahore edition which led to the protests,
arrests and floggings. Earlier, however, the
Karachi edition also had to cease publication,
but the cause and the circumstances were
different. The presses on which the Karachi
Musawat was printed were owned by the
People's Foundation Trust controlled by the
Bhutto family', headed by Begum Nusrat Bhutto.
In addition to the Karachi Musawat these
presses were used for printing a daily newspaper, Hilal-i-Pakistan, published in Sindi, and
a weekly called Nusrat. This trust was taken
over by the Martial Law regime along with the
Zulfikan Ali Bhutto Trust, the formality of takeover being completed by means of President's
Order Number 4 of 1978 made pursuant to the
proclamation of Martial Law of 5 July 1977.
The People's Foundation Trust was renamed
the Sheikh Sultan Trust and all powers vested
in a new board of trustees appointed by the
President. One of the first acts of the new
trustees was to refuse to print the Karachi
Musawat and, being unable to find a new
printer, the paper could not publish. The new
trust has continued to print and publish Hilal-iPakistan and Nusrat. thus adding to the number
of directly operated government newspapers.
Economic pressure or control mainly takes
BRIEF REPORTS
two forms: the control of newsprint and the
control of advertising. Both were used by Mr
Bhutto when in power to favour those newspapers most sympathetic to his regime, and this
kind of pressure continues today. The supply
of newsprint is in the hands of the government,
and those publications which do not follow
government policy have in the past found their
supplies cut off or only erratically available,
sometimes with catastrophic results. During Mr
Bhutto's years in office there was an extensive
programme of nationalisation, one consequence
of which was that a high proportion of the,
major advertisers became state-controlled. Advertising revenue is an important source of
newspaper income in Pakistan as elsewhere, and
this was also used by the Bhutto government as
a means of bringing pressure on the press. It
remains true that many major advertisers such
as Pakistan International Airlines and the big
banks are state-controlled, so that those in
charge of placing advertisements are likely to
favour publications sympathetic to the government in power. This is particularly so where, as
in Pakistan, political opinion is sharply divided.
More fundamental to the control of the press
is The Press and Publication Ordinance of 1963
introduced during President Ayub Khan's
regime and replacing a similar Ordinance of
1960 and amended in 1975 and 1976 during
Mr Bhutto's period in office. This Ordinance
remains the prime instrument used to ensure
that the press substantially reflects the regime's
policies. The Ordinance imposes what is effectively a scheme for the licensing of newspapers
and journals by requiring the printers and publishers of every newspaper to make a declaration in the prescribed form and making it an
offence to print or publish unless such a declaration has been made. In addition to these provisions the Ordinance gives power to the government to require the deposit of security by
the keeper of a press if certain conditions are
fulfilled, with further powers to forfeit the
security and close the press. It is significant
that, by Section 67 of the Ordinance, these
powers are not subject to challenge or question in any court and that many of them are
exercised by the government, not on the basis
of objective criteria, but solely where ' it appears to the government' that the conditions
have been satisfied.
Under the 1963 Ordinance every printer and
publisher has to make a declaration in the
prescribed form which must be authenticated
by a District Magistrate. On reading the Ordin-
55
ance this looks like a formality, but the Magistrate must refuse to authenticate a declaration
by a printer ' about whom the government is
satisfied . . . that he is likely to act in a manner
prejudicial to the defence of Pakistan or to
use the press . . . for the purposes of incitement to the commission of any offence involving violence or for defamation '. In theory, the
printer is entitled to be heard by the government before authentication is refused under this
section, but in fact this enables the government
to hold up almost indefinitely the authentication
of a declaration and so prevent publication of
a newspaper. Although the Ordinance refers to
the provincial government, in practice control
is firmly in the hands of the Martial Law regime
through the Zonal (Provincial) Martial Law Administrators. The technique of withholding, or
simply failing to deal with, applications for declarations was frequently used by the Bhutto
government to deter unsympathetic newspapers.
Section 23 of the 1963 Ordinance entitles the
government, ' whenever it appears to the government ' that a press is used for printing any
one of the matters set out in Section 24, to
require the keeper of the press to deposit security of up to 30,000 rupees. The matters under
Section 24 fall into 14 categories and include
such things as reporting ' crimes of violence
or sex in a manner likely to excite unhealthy
curiosity ' and matters which amount to ' false
rumours or to information calculated to cause
public alarm, frustration or despondency ' or
tending ' directly or indirectly to bring into
hatred or contempt the government established
by law in Pakistan or the administration of justice or any class or section of the citizens of
Pakistan or to excite disaffection towards the
government'. Under Section 24, where the
printing press has been used for such matters,
the government may either order the closure of
the press or forfeit any security deposited under
Section 23. Furthermore, there is nothing in the
Ordinance to prevent repeated orders for the
deposit of security, and indeed deposits of up
to 100,000 rupees are often called for. The
demand for security under the 1963 Ordinance
by the Martial Law regime forced the Karachi
weeklies Meyar, Al Fathe and Shah Jehan to
cease publication. A demand for security is
also sometimes used as a pre-condition for the
authentication of a declaration. It must also be
remembered that when a newspaper's printer is
compelled under this procedure to stop printing it is not just a question of finding another
printer but of finding a printer and then going
56 INDEX ON CENSORSHIP 5/1978
through the often lengthy and difficult process
of his obtaining a declaration.
The 1963 Ordinance is not the only statutory
restraint on newspapers containing powers of
closure and forfeit. Section 99A of the Criminal
Procedure Code 1898 (as amended) enables
the Provincial Government to forfeit publications where it appears to that government that
they contain various things such as ' matters
prejudicial to national integration' or matters
which promote ' feelings of enmity or hatred
between different classes of citizens '. An order
under this Act may, however, be challenged in
Court. Indeed, following the closure of the
Lahore Musawat under these provisions — apparently because it published a statement made
by Mrs Bhutto about the case against her husband in the Lahore High Court - proceedings
were started in the Lahore High Court challenging closure. Musawat Karachi, had similarly
been closed as a consequence of the publication
of allegations by Mr Bhutto that the court trying
him was biased.
The actual arrest of journalists, sometimes
with scant respect for precise legality, is no
novelty in Pakistan. Prominent anti-Bhutto journalists like Mujibur Rehman Shami, Mohammed
Salahuddin, and the Qureshi brothers were imprisoned by him before 1977, just as journalists
such as Sayed Badruddin and Zaheer Kashmiri
(editor and deputy editor of Musawat) and
many leaders of the Pakistan Federal Union of
Journalists (PFUJ) have been arrested since,
though they were subsequently released.
There have been two new developments in the
first few months of 1978. These were the widespread protests organised jointly by the PFUJ
and the All-Pakistan Newspaper Employees'
Confederation (APNEC), to which the Martial
Law regime responded by arresting the journalists concerned under the Martial Law Regulations. These protests followed the closure of
Musawat and took the form of daily attempts
by groups of four journalists to launch a hunger
strike. Each group was arrested, tried and convicted by a Military Court under Martial Law
Regulation (MLR) 5 which prohibits public
meetings, and 33 which prohibits political activity. MLR 33 is very widely drawn and bans
publication of anything ' furthering the cause
of any political party or politician ', ' likely to
cause sensation or misunderstanding amongst
the people or which is prejudicial to the precepts of Islam or the ideology or integrity or
security of Pakistan ', or ' likely to cause dis-
affection towards the Martial Law Administration or any martial law authority ' and ' arranging or holding any reception for any politician '
or ' in furtherance of the cause of a political
party or politician '. MLR 33 carries a maximum
sentence of seven years' imprisonment and/or
20 strokes.
Two effects of the journalists' protests were
the polarisation of opinion within the newspaper
trade unions PFUJ and APNEC and the realisation by the Martial Law authorities that some
compromise with the press was desirable. As a
result a section of the Punjab Union of Journalists (PUJ) favourable to the regime entered
into negotiations with the government for the
re-opening of Musawat; no doubt they represented only a minority of journalists and perhaps their concern was as much with the unemployment faced by their members in consequence of newspaper closures as with freedom
of the press. However, it also provided the
government with the opportunity of acknowledging through its supporters the desirability, in
principle at least, of some measure of press
freedom. The concept may fairly be described
as one of ' responsible dissent', and while this
is a concept more appropriate to a benevolent
autocracy than a democracy, at least the fact
that dissent is accepted as possible may indicate that the Musawat protesters did not suffer
in vain. However, it must also be recognised
that there are subjects that are taboo in the
Pakistan press and likely to remain so, not
only because of possible government sanctions
but also because of the self-censorship by
journalists themselves. Thus there can be no
discussion of the Islamic foundation of Pakistan, nor anything which may encourage the
national aspirations of individual groups within
the state - the structure of the country is too
fragile and the memory of the secession of
Bangladesh too recent for that.
•
J. Melville Williams
Norwegian secrets case
The September 1977 general election in Norway was accompanied by a controversy concerning alleged surveillance of Norwegian organisations and the Soviet bloc carried out
from Norwegian soil by the CIA and Norwegian
military intelligence. A Sosialistisk Venstreparti
(Socialist Left Party) MP claimed during the
election campaign that there was a secret agree-