The Principle Stand Or The Dividing Line?

As soon as the PML-N’s delegation arrived at the MQM’s head office “90” and, consequently, MQM announced to vote for its presidential candidate Mr. Mamnoon Hussain, there emerged a storm in the Pakistani media on it. Almost all the anchorpersons started discussing the new relationship between PML-N and MQM. In their shows, they talked about the period when there was quite tense atmosphere between the two. They also re-telecast the clips of the unpleasant remarks exchanged between the PML-N and MQM’s representatives. The common question that the media-men raised was, is the no principle in politics?

It is true that considering the past record of the MQM and PML-N relationship, it could not be expected that PML-N would ever go to the MQM’s door in order to seek its political support. But, is it a new political development in our country? No, of course not! The history of our politics reveals that almost all the political and religious parties, despite their “principle” stands and also after already having had bitter experience from the others, have sat together more than once commonly for “one point agenda” and in the name of “the best interest of the country”.

The APC in Dubai in 2007 and signing the Charter of Democracy by all the parties (excluding MQM as it had been isolated) in which they did a collective penance on their past activities and decided not to repeat the same in future. Even in a talk show in 2013, the PML-N’s Khuwaja Saad Rafiq said, “Now, we do not want to return to the 90’s “dore-e-Jahiliyat”. This truly exposes what our political parties had been doing against each other in the era of 90’s. In fact, the COD was the biggest and collective on-air u-turn by our political and religious parties. However, it was welcomed by the Pakistani media and they declared it a historic event of the Pakistani politics. The question is, why to criticize the working relationship between MQM and PML-N?

The question is, why the new relationship between MQM and PML-N is on the hit list of the Pakistani media? Where were these principles and ethics when PML-N formed alliances with the Sindhi nationalists, rather separatist? Was that political meeting with them in accordance with the ethics and principles? The similar story is with the PMl-N’s meeting with the “angry” Balochis. PML-N’s Nawaz Sharif has already had several meetings with the Baloch leaders who directly or indirectly had been supporting the slogan of independence of Balochistan. Not only that, even the present government in Balochistan is considered as the gift of PML-N to the similar people.

The most important example in that respect is of the PML-N’s invitation to PAC’s Uzair Jan Baloch to join PML-N. In the scenario, when there emerged serious differences between the PPP and PAC and Uzair Jan Baloch had announced to part its ways from PPP, the PML-N immediately sent its delegation to Liyari to PAC’s Uzair Jan Baloch with the message from Nawaz Sharif to join PML-N. It should be kept in mind that it was time when the government of Sindh had already banned the PAC and the Sindh police had also requested the government to announce the head money for Uzair Jan Baloch and his other gangsters. Then, was it acceptable for the anchorpersons that an national party had gone to Liyari a no-go area to request the chief of a banned outfit to join PM-N? Why did the media-men remain silent on that meeting? Not speaking of criticizing it, the anchorperson and the political analysts called it a good move of PML-N to give a tough time to PPP in its political fort. Does this not show a prejudiced attitude of the media-men towards MQM?

Logically, if there is any principle stands on any issue, then why to take the u-turn from it? However, the things are not so simple as they seem to be. In fact, it should be ensured that the stands or political moves must be truly on principles. Taking into account the norms prevailing in our politics, can we be sure that the political move being taken from a party is honestly on the principles? Practically, it will not be so easy to do so. In such a situation, how to jump into a specific conclusion? Neutrally speaking, the media should not criticize the patch ups, but their break ups. In the scenario where different political parties, ethnic communities, religious & sectarian groups and even the institutions are having differences in the name of their principle stands (no matter whether they are truly based on principles or are just the result of any annoyance, rivalry, enmity, hatred or reaction of any misunderstanding), should we discourage they are trying to come closer to each other?

Presently, the Supreme Court judgment for rescheduling the presidential election has created a big controversy in the Pakistani politics. As a result, PPP, PML-Q and ANP boycotted the election by terming the judgment as an unconstitutional, illegal. Even the PTI’s Imran Khan has very severely criticized the Supreme Court and, as a result, the SC has issued a contempt of court notice to him in return. In this context, if the opposition parties and the Supreme Court keep standing by their own “principal stands” despite the situation goes worse, will the anchorpersons and political analysts appreciate them on sticking to their “principle stands”? On the other hand, if somehow, they sit together and a way is mutually taken out to resolve the issue, will the media criticize it? Will it term it as a violation of ethics and principles? I do not think so.

In contrast to their stance against the PML-N and MQM’s new relationship, if they advise either of the parties to have flexibility in their “principle” stands to resolve the issue, should MQM and PML-N not term it as a u-turn or a violation of the ethics from the media-men from their principle stands? Therefore, our media “scholars” must keep in their minds that sometimes “principle stands“ become a clear diving line between the two rival parties, groups, sects or communities. Moreover, who is going to decide if the old stand or the new flexible move is truly on principles? Therefore, the anchorpersons need to be very careful regarding their role especially in the scenario when they are already having an unpleasant relationship with a specific party or group. They should not be unnecessarily rigid or aggressive against their rivals. They should criticize people, but must not let their views be tilted against or in favor of anyone in any case. Otherwise, they will lose their credibility.