Daily Times

We may have possession of many things, and we may also lack the capacity to grab things we hanker after. But one thing, we do possess for sure: certificates. Yes, the certificates awarded for being a ‘quisling’, which is a notorious form of a traitor. This trait of awarding certificates is well-coded into the genes of the people of the subcontinent.

In India, anybody talking for the rights of the Kashmiris is blatantly tagged as an ISI agent. Along with glorifying merits of democracy, intolerant jingoism has also been growing vehemently and unhindered in the resourceful land of India. Bearing something unpalatable and then controlling your angst is appreciable, yet having no control over the reins of your anger and unleashing it on your opponent with all might and fury is what is being practised by this member country of BRICS. This is what befell on the heels of the Uri attack. Almost all had to accuse Pakistan without proper investigation of the untoward incident. And so much so that those who didn’t condemn the presence of Pakistani actors in the land of the biggest democracy of the globe had to face the harshest flak of ‘the patriots’.

The scene in Pakistan is no different.

The easiest task here is to open your mouth and blame the target with the most vociferous force. Say anything against the established norms and be ready to be brandied as a traitor. Another new terminology has been inserted in the diction of Pakistan: a RAW agent. Being a RAW agent can be more disreputable than being a CIA one, and can cause huge wrath of the people around.

Once the cycle of stamping someone with the epithet of an agent starts, every Tom, Dick and Harry join the cadre of patriots so as to release the worst kind of censure. The worse the abuse is, the bigger is the stature of a patriot. The one who chooses to be cautious in pointing fingers ought to be ready for castigation.

The recent indictment of being a ‘hostile agent’ fell hard on Cyril Almeida, and Dawn, the newspaper he works for. Almeida, after considerable deliberation, wrote the story of a high-profile meeting between civil and military top brass. The meeting took place on the third of this month. The problem is that the piece by Almeida brings out the conflict between civil and military leadership over controlling ‘non-state actors’ subsisting on the land of Pakistan. The conflict divulges that the civilian side is keen to bridle these India and Afghanistan-centric groups, but the military unobtrusively comes in to rescue them. Now this was taken by many as the version supporting the case of India and Afghanistan.

This is what reporters and writers do worldwide: take a story, deliberate on the authenticity of its content, and then strive to write on the subject objectively. This is what Almeida seemed to have done. There is a gap of three days between the meeting and the publication of the story. Almeida wrote that he took three days in confirming the content from multiple sources. Per contra, everywhere on social media is going on the pageant ceremony of awarding Cyril Almeida the certificate of a ‘traitor’.

An important case in the history of the US can be quoted here — New York Times Co. V. United States. In 1971, The New York Times obtained a copy of documents known as the “Pentagon Papers.” The documents related an internal Department of Defence report that detailed US government’s deception with regard to the Vietnam War. The government claimed that the publication of the papers would endanger the “security of the United States.” The US Supreme Court ruled in favour of The New York Times.

In 2013, the British prime minister was furious over the publication of security-related intelligence leaks by a British national daily, The Guardian. On another occasion, the same paper unfolded how London controls Karachi through Altaf Hussain in a report titled “Altaf Hussain, the notorious MQM leader who swapped Pakistan for London” — a version that clearly goes against the standing of the British government.

So press has always behaved in a certain manner. The concerned states have expressed their displeasure regarding certain reports in certain publications, but they do not award certificates of treachery. This is what we have to learn and practise in this part of the world, too.

In the matter of Almeida, the real mischief was done by those who wittingly planned to leak out important details of the meeting. The details, no doubt, substantiate the viewpoint of countries that have always spewed virulence against the Pakistan army.

Coming back to the topic, labelling somebody a traitor never exempts those having genuine rancour within their bosoms against their own countries. If you sneak into the land of an arch-rival country that does not like to acknowledge the existence of your country, and say that your country’s coming into existence is the biggest mistake of history, you do not stand vindicated. And if you travel to a far-off country of the world on the pretext of some ailment, and initiate a vilification campaign against your own country and its army, you do not stand purged of the tag of a traitor.

The point is that even in such cases, the title should not be awarded by individuals but the legal organs of the state. If somebody is a traitor because has done something truly harmful to his country, he must be brought to justice. Let a court decide. We, as individuals, ought to abstain from opening our own legal offices and issue forth the verdict of someone ‘being a traitor’.

The writer is a lecturer of English, and can be reached at tahir_iqbal87@hotmail.com