Latest world news

Should Journalists Protect National Interest Or Publish And Be Damned?

Published

9 years ago

July 22, 2017

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”.

Up Next

US; Withholding $ 350 m Pak Funds Not New Policy

Don't Miss

The Media Today: Unified support for a giant of the Senate

Latest world news

Iranian President Pezeshkian at UN says Iranians have been victims of US terrorism

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said at the UN General Assembly that Iranians had been victims of US terrorism and insisted that Iran had acted in self-defence.

Published

3 days ago

September 23, 2026

APNLive Desk

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian accused the United States of subjecting Iranians to what he described as terrorism while addressing the United Nations General Assembly on Wednesday.

Pezeshkian said Iran had defended itself against attacks and rejected the characterisation of the country as a terrorist actor. His remarks came during a rare wartime appearance at the UN as tensions between Iran and the United States remain high.

Pezeshkian accuses US and Israel of attacks

Speaking at the General Assembly, Pezeshkian said Iranian civilians had been targeted by attacks and described the actions against his country as aggression.

“We have only defended ourselves. We are not terrorists,” he said, according to the report.

Pezeshkian also accused the United States and Israel of attacking Iran, while maintaining that Tehran’s response was an act of self-defence.

The Iranian president displayed photographs of former Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and more than 150 schoolchildren who, according to his account, were killed during the early days of the conflict.

Iran’s message at the UN

Pezeshkian’s address came against the backdrop of the ongoing conflict between Iran and the United States and heightened tensions in the region.

Iranian officials had indicated ahead of the UN visit that they intended to highlight what Tehran considers attacks against its people and raise concerns over the international response to the conflict.

The Iranian delegation’s visit to New York also comes amid restrictions imposed by the United States on the delegation’s movement and other aspects of its stay, according to reporting ahead of the address.

Pezeshkian says Iran defended itself

Pezeshkian’s central message at the UN was that Iran’s military actions should be viewed as a response to attacks rather than terrorism.

His description of the conflict and the allegations against the United States and Israel represent the Iranian government’s position. They should therefore be attributed to Pezeshkian rather than presented as independently established facts.

Latest world news

PM Modi’s Canada visit could help wrap trade talks, says Canada PM Mark Carney

Canadian PM Mark Carney said he is looking forward to hosting PM Narendra Modi, with both countries aiming to conclude their ongoing trade negotiations.

Published

3 days ago

September 23, 2026

APNLive Desk

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has said he is looking forward to hosting Prime Minister Narendra Modi, as India and Canada continue efforts to advance their bilateral relationship and conclude ongoing trade negotiations.

The two countries have been working towards a Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA), with both sides previously setting a target to conclude the negotiations in 2026.

Carney and Modi have held discussions on strengthening economic ties between India and Canada, including trade and investment. Their engagement has gained momentum following Carney’s visit to India earlier this year.

India-Canada trade talks

India and Canada formally resumed efforts towards a broader trade agreement after a period of strained bilateral ties. The two sides have committed to advancing negotiations on a CEPA covering their economic relationship.

In June, Carney and Modi reviewed progress in bilateral economic cooperation during their meeting on the sidelines of the G7 Summit in France. They expressed satisfaction with the progress in CEPA negotiations and reaffirmed their shared objective of concluding the talks in 2026.

During Carney’s visit to India in March, the two leaders had also agreed to accelerate negotiations on the CEPA and work towards finalising the agreement during 2026.

Modi’s proposed Canada visit

Carney had invited PM Modi to visit Canada in 2026, and the two leaders agreed to remain engaged through diplomatic channels to work towards a mutually convenient date for the visit.

The proposed visit comes as New Delhi and Ottawa seek to build on renewed diplomatic and economic engagement, with trade negotiations remaining a key part of the relationship.

The focus on completing the trade talks comes as both countries look to expand commercial ties and establish a broader economic framework through the proposed CEPA.

Latest world news

Trump issues fresh Iran warning at UN General Assembly, signals deal after midterms

US President Donald Trump issued a fresh warning to Iran during his UN General Assembly address, saying he faces a choice between a deal and further escalation.

Published

4 days ago

September 22, 2026

APNLive Desk

US President Donald Trump used his address to the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday to outline what he described as a major decision over Iran, putting the possibility of a deal against further military escalation.

Speaking at the UN in New York, Trump said he had a “big decision” to make. He questioned whether the United States should pursue an agreement that would allow Iran to rebuild or instead take further action against the Islamic Republic.

Trump later indicated that he believed an agreement with Iran could be reached after the US midterm elections, which are scheduled for November 3.

Trump says deal with Iran remains possible

During his speech, Trump presented two possible paths. He said a deal could allow Iran to rebuild and become a stronger country, while also raising the possibility of destroying the Islamic Republic if an agreement was not reached.

Trump said he believed a deal could eventually be reached, arguing that Iran was waiting to see the outcome of the US midterm elections.

His comments came amid the continuing US-Iran conflict and renewed diplomatic activity surrounding the confrontation. Trump’s UN appearance came as Washington was also engaged in discussions with multiple international leaders over the Iran conflict and other global issues.

Iranian delegation walks out during Trump’s speech

The Iranian delegation reportedly left the General Assembly chamber as Trump began describing the military confrontation with Iran.

According to the report, only one person from the Iranian delegation remained seated as Trump spoke about the conflict and the military strikes of the past six months.

The walkout came as tensions between Washington and Tehran remained high, with both sides facing pressure over the continuation of the conflict.

Trump’s latest warning follows earlier comments

Trump’s UN remarks came days after he said he was approaching a major decision over whether to intensify military action against Iran or pursue another route.

He had also indicated before his UN appearance that he could be open to meeting Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian during the UN General Assembly in New York.

The possibility of renewed negotiations comes against the backdrop of continuing military and diplomatic tensions between the two countries.