English हिन्दी
Connect with us

Latest world news

Should Journalists Protect National Interest Or Publish And Be Damned?

Published

on

By Saeed Naqvi

Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s fate hangs in the balance on unexplained finances, most specifically for apartments he acquired on London’s most expensive stretch, Park Lane, facing Hyde Park. I visited the most prized of these apartments on October 15, 1999, days after Gen. Pervez Musharraf ousted him in a coup on October 12.

To make sense of the military handouts explaining the situation, I turned up in London to interview his youngest son, Hasan then 23, who, I presumed would have been in touch with members of his family in Islamabad and Lahore.

What struck me and my camera crew were the rich, opulent interiors, heavy curtains one would expect at the Savoy and the Dorchester, sofas with upholstery so expensive as to hover between class and vulgarity. The deep corridors lead to many bedrooms, one of which Hasan occupied even when he was at London University. To elevate the grand style of the Sharifs was a butler in attendance, wearing tails of impeccable cut, as if he were off to the Ascot races.

My interview with Hasan was about the coup and its aftermath, but as the 118 Park Lane acquired saliency in the current corruption saga, I looked at the video again from the angle of “ill-gotten wealth”. There was plenty of it in the footage.

A thought crossed my mind: it might be of interest to TV channels in Pakistan.

Immediately, my hand was stayed by a left-liberal friend in the media.

“This footage will weaken civil society which is suspicious of Imran Khan’s collusion with the army.”

Two schools of journalism were suddenly in conflict. Should Nawaz Sharif’s alleged corruption be overlooked because protecting him against Imran Khan served some higher purpose? Publish and be damned is what I had been taught when confronted with such situations.

Another story, ironically this one concerning Imran Khan, comes to mind.

I had turned up in Israel, to interview Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir totally against the advice of my left-liberal friends – Prof. Mushirul Hasan, for instance. Muslim Congressmen surrounding Rajiv Gandhi were advising him against upgrading relations with Israel “because the Muslim vote would be adversely affected.” This, I wrote, was rubbish. Salman Rushdie, Shah Bano, Babari Masjid and relations with Israel were not life and death issues for Indian Muslims. Education, entrepreneurial help, jobs were the substantive issue. It was this argument I had armed myself with for my journey to Jerusalem. We would be that much more influential on the Palestinian issue I had argued.

Linda, the Press Secretary to Shamir showed me a list of “Pakistanis who claimed to have been sent by Imran Khan to explore relations with the Jewish state”. Remember Jemima was married to Imran and her multi billionaire father, Sir James Goldsmith wielded great influence in Jerusalem. I did not write that story because Imran then was much more a cricketer than politician. Moreover, Linda had shared this information in confidence on a personal basis.

When Benazir Bhutto sought a conversation with Israeli President Ezer Weizman during Nelson Mandela’s inauguration in Pretoria in 1994, I did mention the fact. She was a Prime Minister, trying to connect with Israel clandestinely.

When the Janata government under Morarji Desai encouraged Bhutan to open up gradually in international affairs, south block was split on the pace of this openness. At this juncture the successor government of Prime Minister Charan Singh, hurriedly invited Shyam Nandan Mishra, the MP from Bihar, to attend the Non Aligned Summit in Havana in September 1979 as the new External Affairs Minister. A novice in world affairs, Mishra put his foot in his mouth on a secret treaty which guides Indo-Bhutan relations.

So cross was King Jigme Singye Wangchuk that he invited me to Mumbai where he was halting on his journey from Havana. This was most unprecedented. No king of Bhutan had ever given an interview to a journalist.

The interview, published behind the back of the establishment, created a sensation. The hawks in South Block were angry because I had provided a forum to the King to vent his anger on a very sensitive issue which may give a handle to China. In those days also “grazing grounds” between Bhutan and China were an issue. Head of Bhutan’s Geological Survey, Sonam Ragbey, was in and out of New Delhi with maps. It was all very hush, hush.

The dilemma facing me then was: should I have anticipated the Indian hawks and, posing as a protector of the national interest, killed the story? Or should I abide by the old dictum: publish and be dammed?

I took the latter route.

A quest for balance on International Affairs in the Indian media has always been a fool’s errand. The Imperial-colonial stranglehold obtains to this day. When Ronald Reagan bombed Bengazi and Tripoli in April 1986 because US intelligence had picked up chatter in a Berlin discotheque that Libyan terrorists were about to target Western locations, the story was either not noticed in India or the western version was wallowed hook line and sinker.

When I turned up in Tripoli to interview Qaddafi whose six month old daughter had been killed in the air raid on his Palace, I was regarded as a subversive, blackleg by the western press corps. I still remember a disapproving Kate Aide of the BBC in the hotel room opposite mine.

The entire anti Qaddafi propaganda was based on falsehoods. Should I go along with the powerful conventional wisdom forged globally or puncture it since I had witnessed the incontrovertible truth?

The interview made banner headlines in European newspapers like La Republica, but I also lived to see how powerful the western lobbies were on that solitary event.

Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, who had dispatched his external affairs minister, Bali Ram Bhagat to commiserate with Qaddafi in Tripoli, came under such heavy pressure from the Reagan White House, that he was obliged to make Bhagat the scapegoat. He was sacked.

It was clear as daylight once again that in situations like this, whatever the official line, the only principle a journalist with spine must abide by is, “publish and be damned”.

Latest world news

Pakistan faces domestic backlash after India secures lower tariffs in US trade deal

India’s US trade agreement has sparked criticism in Pakistan after Islamabad ended up with higher tariffs despite sustained outreach to Washington.

Published

on

PM Shehbaz Sharif

India’s recently concluded trade agreement with the United States has triggered strong domestic criticism in Pakistan, where opposition leaders, journalists and commentators are questioning Islamabad’s diplomatic strategy after the country ended up with higher tariffs than India.

Under the agreement announced on February 2, US tariffs on Indian exports have been set at 18 per cent, while Pakistani goods will face a 19 per cent rate. The outcome has drawn sharp reactions in Pakistan, especially given what critics describe as sustained efforts by its leadership to engage Washington in recent months.

New Delhi, by contrast, is widely seen as having resisted pressure from US President Donald Trump and negotiated from a position of economic leverage rather than personal diplomacy.

Social media reactions highlight public anger

Following the announcement, Trump shared images related to India, including India Gate and a magazine cover featuring Prime Minister Narendra Modi alongside himself, before confirming the revised tariff rate for Indian goods. The optics did not go unnoticed in Pakistan, where social media users questioned why India secured better terms without overt displays of political deference.

One widely circulated post by Pakistan-based X user Umar Ali used sharp language and imagery to criticise Pakistan’s approach, reflecting growing frustration among sections of the public over what they see as an unequal outcome despite extensive outreach efforts.

Opposition leaders question foreign policy approach

Former Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf minister Hammad Azhar described the outcome as a failure of strategy rather than circumstance. He argued that modern foreign policy depends on economic strength, market access and tariffs, not symbolic gestures or personal relationships, pointing to India’s recent trade agreements with both the US and the European Union as examples.

Other opposition figures echoed similar views, saying India negotiated with “strategic autonomy” while Pakistan relied too heavily on personal engagement with US leadership.

Journalists warn of economic consequences

Journalists in Pakistan also weighed in, warning that the tariff decision could deepen the country’s existing economic challenges. Concerns were raised about declining exports, falling foreign investment and reduced bargaining power on the global stage.

Commentator Imran Riaz Khan criticised what he termed a failed lobbying strategy, arguing that symbolic gestures cannot replace economic leverage in international negotiations. Digital creator Wajahat Khan similarly framed the outcome as a reflection of unequal negotiating positions, stating that India approached the talks as a partner, while Pakistan did not.

India’s trade deals expected to boost exports

India’s back-to-back trade agreements with the European Union and the United States are expected to provide a significant boost to exports. Estimates suggest these deals could add up to $150 billion in exports over the next decade, strengthening India’s economic standing and reinforcing its negotiating position in future global trade talks.

Continue Reading

Latest world news

New Delhi free to buy oil from any source, Russia says amid US deal claims

Russia has said India is free to purchase oil from any country, dismissing claims that New Delhi has agreed to stop buying Russian crude under a US trade deal.

Published

on

New Delhi free to buy oil from any source, Russia says amid US deal claims

Russia has said that India is free to purchase crude oil from any country, responding to claims by US President Donald Trump that New Delhi has agreed to stop buying Russian oil as part of a recent trade deal with Washington.

The Kremlin said Russia is not India’s only energy supplier and noted that India has long sourced crude oil from multiple countries. It added that there is nothing new in India’s efforts to diversify its oil imports.

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said that energy experts are well aware that India purchases oil and petroleum products from various global suppliers. He added that Moscow does not see any change in India’s approach to sourcing crude.

No official word from India on halting imports

A day earlier, Peskov said Russia has not received any official statement from India regarding the cessation of Russian oil purchases. Russia’s Foreign Ministry echoed the view, saying the hydrocarbon trade between the two countries remains mutually beneficial.

Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova said India’s purchase of Russian hydrocarbons contributes to stability in the global energy market and that Moscow remains ready to continue close cooperation with New Delhi in the energy sector.

Russian media also noted that, unlike the US president, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has not made any public statement indicating an agreement to stop Russian oil imports.

India’s oil imports from Russia

India has continued to import Russian crude even after the US imposed tariffs on Indian goods. According to global trade data provider Kpler, India has been importing around 1.5 million barrels of Russian crude per day, making it the second-largest buyer of Russian oil and accounting for more than one-third of India’s total crude imports.

India buys about 88 per cent of its crude oil needs from overseas, with roughly one-third sourced from Russia. At its peak, imports from Russia crossed 2 million barrels per day, before falling to around 1.3 million barrels per day in December. The volume is expected to remain broadly stable in the near term.

However, imports declined further to about 1.1 million barrels per day in the first three weeks of January following higher tariffs imposed by the US, including levies linked to purchases of Russian energy.

Complete switch unlikely, experts say

Energy experts believe Indian refiners cannot fully replace Russian crude with American oil. Igor Yushkov of the National Energy Security Fund said US shale oil is lighter in grade, while Russian Urals crude is heavier and contains more sulphur.

He explained that replacing Russian oil would require blending different grades, increasing costs for refiners. He added that the US is unlikely to be able to supply the volume currently exported by Russia to India.

Yushkov also recalled that when Russia redirected its oil exports from Western markets to India in 2022, it reduced production by about one million barrels per day, contributing to a sharp rise in global oil prices and record fuel prices in the US.

Continue Reading

Latest world news

Moscow says no word from India on stopping Russian oil purchases

Russia says it has received no confirmation from India on stopping Russian oil purchases, despite Donald Trump’s claim that the move was part of a new India-US trade deal.

Published

on

Vladimir Putin

The Kremlin on Tuesday said it has not received any official communication from India regarding a halt in Russian oil purchases, following claims by US President Donald Trump that New Delhi had agreed to stop buying Russian crude as part of a trade agreement with Washington.

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov told reporters that Moscow had not heard any confirmation from Indian authorities on the matter.

“So far, we haven’t heard any statements from New Delhi on this matter,” Peskov said, responding to Trump’s remarks linking reduced US tariffs on Indian goods to an alleged commitment by India to end Russian oil imports.

Russia stresses importance of ties with India

Peskov said Russia respects bilateral relations between India and the United States but underlined the strategic importance of ties between Moscow and New Delhi.

“We respect bilateral US-Indian relations,” he said, adding that Russia places equal importance on its strategic partnership with India.
“This is the most important thing for us, and we intend to further develop our bilateral relations with Delhi.”

What Trump claimed

Trump announced the India-US trade deal on Monday, stating that tariffs on Indian goods had been reduced from 50 per cent to 18 per cent. He claimed the reduction was linked to India agreeing to stop purchasing Russian oil.

According to Trump, India would instead buy more oil from the United States and potentially from Venezuela. He also suggested that the move would help bring an end to the war in Ukraine.

“He agreed to stop buying Russian oil and to buy much more from the United States and, potentially, Venezuela,” Trump said, referring to Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

India’s reliance on Russian crude

India has emerged as one of the largest buyers of Russian crude since the start of the Ukraine conflict. It currently imports around 1.5 million barrels of Russian oil per day, accounting for more than one-third of its total oil imports, according to global trade data.

India is the second-largest purchaser of Russian crude globally. Even after earlier US tariff measures on Indian goods, New Delhi continued its Russian oil imports, citing energy security concerns.

The Indian government has consistently maintained that securing affordable energy supplies is critical, given the country’s heavy dependence on oil imports.

Shift in energy ties after Ukraine war

Historically, India’s relationship with Russia was centred more on defence cooperation than energy trade, with Russia supplying a majority of India’s military equipment while contributing only a small share of its oil imports.

After the invasion of Ukraine, India significantly increased purchases of discounted Russian oil. The move helped India boost energy supplies while providing Russia with much-needed revenue amid Western sanctions.

As recently as December 2025, Russian President Vladimir Putin said during a visit to New Delhi that Moscow was ready to ensure uninterrupted fuel supplies to India despite pressure from the United States.

Earlier US push for Indian energy imports

Trump had earlier said, following a meeting with Prime Minister Modi in February last year, that India would begin buying more American oil and natural gas. However, those discussions did not lead to a major shift in India’s energy sourcing.

Subsequent US tariff measures also failed to significantly alter India’s stance on Russian oil imports.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com