A must read article by Shahid Alam published in Counter Punch discussing the recent controversy regarding the resignation of Najam Sethi from Daily Times which was allegedly due to employee pay-scale conflict with the owners of the media group. Shahid Alam in his article goes on to analyze the core reason as to how Daily Times came into existence around 2002 and then its subsequent dubious positioning over the many years “in making Daily Times a ‘new voice for a new Pakistan’“which may possibly be so expertly served the interests of its founders. A few interesting excerpts have been quoted here while the rest of the article can be read that Counter Punch
Counter Punch: The DT was launched in April 2002, simultaneously from Lahore and Karachi, just a few months after the United States had invaded and occupied Afghanistan, with indispensable logistic support from Pakistan. Was this timing a mere coincidence? Or was the launching of an aggressively pro-American and pro-Zionist newspaper, led by a team of mostly US-trained editors and columnists, an imperative of the new geopolitics created by the Pakistan’s mercenary embrace of the US-Zionist global war against terrorism?
Coincidence or not, the DT has served its masters with verve. Its pages have carried countless editorials justifying Pakistan’s induction into the US led war against Afghanistan, under the cover of the attacks of September 11. The editors and columnists at DT have routinely excoriated the patriots who have opposed Pakistan’s surrender to US-Zionist demands, as naïve sentimentalists unaware of the tough demands of realpolitik. Endlessly, they have argued that Pakistan – with the world’s sixth largest population, a million-strong military, and an arsenal of nuclear weapons – can save itself only through eager prostration before the demands of foreign powers.
… In 2007, when the lawyers in Pakistan took to the streets to demand the restoration of the Chief Justice sacked by the military dictator, the DT did not support them. Instead, it defended the sacking, and repeatedly made the case for a ‘gradual transition’ to civilian rule in Pakistan. A civilian government, they were afraid, might not be as compliant to US pressures as Pakistan’s military rulers.
Shahid Masood and others came post-9/11 too. I would not judge DT but then why criticize someone who has a different point of view? by actually going against DT's line aren't you making the same argument that President Mushraff made while banning news-channels? or Nawaz Sharif's banning Jang during his tenure? Let's learn to accept alternate point of views.
Read another on Najam Sethi:
MSA: Who were the prominent members of the London Group?
AR: There was Najam Sethi, Ahmed Rashid, my brother, Rashid Rehman, Dilip Dass. These are the people who originally came to support the Balochistan movement. These are the names I am willing to disclose because they are well-known as having played a part in the Balochistan movement. I would not be discussing the names of the other members of the London Group for two reasons: One, they did not participate in Balochistan movement. Two, I will be compromising on their security if I disclose their names. Revisiting the Che Guevara-like days of Baloch resistance movement with Asad Rehman By Malik Siraj Akbar http://gmcmissing.wordpress.com/2009/10/19/revisi…
Shahid Alam writes aggressively …..I agree to his analysis of the corrupts and elites etc.
Regarding USA and post September Eleven,there were two groups of openion.i.e.be a part of Coalation forces and
not to be a part of coalation forces.
Interesting is to see that even people who said be a part of coalation said so reluctantly,for they knew inthe end they would not be able to tolerate USA for this long .