Showing posts with label Imran Aslam. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Imran Aslam. Show all posts

Sunday, July 15, 2012

"LIE" with Imran Aslam aka Jinnah, GEO TV & Jang Group.


Speaking at a forum in Washington earlier this year, President GEO TV Imran Aslam proudly described his channel’s political activism. He spent most of the time talking about activism against the Hudood ordinances – a great example for an American audience, but hardly the only (or most common) issue. Actually, when the moderator asked if he thinks he has ever gone too far, Imran replied, ‘Zardari think so’ and then burst into laughter. The question of whether media should engage in political activism, though, is no laughing matter. Imran Aslam may have been the one to publicly admit that his channel sees itself as doing activism and not just journalism, but Geo TV is not the only media organisation that engages in political activism. Political activism masqurading as journalism has also been seen on Samaa TV, the channel that aired Meher Bokhari’s fatwas before she finally crossed the line, only to get picked up at Dunya TV. REFERENCE: Media and Activism: Where do we draw the line? July 15th, 2012 http://pakistanmediawatch.com/2012/07/15/media-and-activism-where-do-we-draw-the-line/

President GEO TV Imran Aslam discusses his channel's political activism

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKCATqhfXEg



BBC: The rise of Pakistan's televangelists By Mobeen Azhar BBC World Service, Karachi 14 July 2012 Farhat Hashmi has been accused of embezzling funds from her television show and fleeing to Canada to avoid prosecution, although she denies any wrongdoing. And Mehar Bukhari, known for her political interviews, sparked outrage by declaring the politician she was speaking to was a heretic. But the best-known of all the TV evangelists is Dr Amir Liaqat. From a glossy television studio above a parade of run-down shops in Karachi, he had an audience of millions for Alim aur Alam, a live one-hour show that went out five days a week across Pakistan. The programme allowed Dr Liaqat to play the role of a religious "Agony Uncle", remedying the religious dilemmas of his audience. In September 2008, Liaqat dedicated an entire episode to exploring the beliefs of the Ahmedis, a Muslim sect which has been declared as "un-Islamic" by much of the orthodoxy. In it, two scholars said that anyone who associated with false prophets was "worthy of murder". Dr Khalid Yusaf, an Ahmedi Muslim, watched the programme with his family, and says he was shocked that a mainstream channel would broadcast this kind of material. "They talked about murder as a religious duty. A duty for 'good' Muslims." Within 24 hours of the broadcast, a prominent member of the Ahmedi community was shot dead in the small town of Mirpur Kass. Twenty-four hours later Khalid Yusaf's father, another Ahmedi community leader, was killed by two masked gunmen. Liaqat has distanced himself from the shootings. "I have no regrets because it has nothing to do with me," he says. "I'm hurt by what happened and I'm sorry for the families but it has nothing to do with me or anything that was said on my programme." REFERENCE: The rise of Pakistan's televangelists By Mobeen Azhar BBC World Service, Karachi 14 July 2012 Last updated at 00:22 GMT http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18729683



In the second part of his investigation into what it is to be non-Muslim in Pakistan, Mobeen investigates the role of scholars and imams who preach their strict religious teaching into the homes of millions of Pakistanis via the dozens of cable TV stations, and the role they play in the growing religious intolerance that has led to violence against minorities in the country. He meets the son of an Ahmedi Muslim, a part of the religion ostracised by the mainstream, whom was shot, after a TV Mullah said they should be punished. He asks the programme host, Dr Amir Liaqat, a household name in Pakistan, how comments on his show led to the killing of two Pakistanis. Mobeen will hear how these spiritual TV agony uncles field calls from parents worried their daughters are not wearing the right headwear, or that their son’s beard is not the right length, before pronouncing punishments, and he speaks to Pakistani Bollywood superstar Veena Malik, criticised by one TV Mullah for her ‘western’ appearance, and how her TV appearance where she argued with the Mullah, became a huge YouTube hit. She tells ‘Heart and Soul’ about her fears for the increasing power and influence the TV stations have over her countrymen and women. REFERENCE: Heart And Soul The Trouble with Pakistan's White Stripe Episode 2 http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00vbzq5

BBC Urdu - GEO TV - Ahmadiyya Community

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETl0LmlNn2s


In a program aired on 7 September 2008 the anchor of the religious program 'Alam Online', Dr. Amir Liaquat Hussain--also former federal minister for religious affairs--declared the murder of Ahmadi sect members to be necessary (Wajib ul Qatal) according to Islamic teachings, because its followers don't believe in the last prophet, Mohammad, peace be upon him. Dr. Amir repeated his instruction several times, urging fundamentalists Muslims to kill without fear. While on air the anchor person also pressured the other two Islamic scholars (from two different sects) on the program to support the statement. This resulted in a unanimous decision among the scholars, on air during a popular television show, to urge lynching with the intent to kill. This was not a one-off. On September 9, Mr. Hussain answered a query with the comment that blasphemers are liable to be put to death. According to the information received, at 1:15pm on September 8, 18 hours after the broadcast, six persons entered the Fazle Umer Clinic, a two-story hospital at Mirpur Khas city and two of them went to the second floor and started pressuring 45 year-old Dr. Abdul Manan Siddiqui to come downstairs to attend to a patient in crisis. Dr. Manan left his office and descended into an ambush. He was shot 11 times and died on the spot. His private guard was also shot and is in a serious condition. A woman was also injured by firing. The killers remained at the hospital until the doctor was declared dead, then they walked out of the building's front entrance. Police registered the killers as unknown. On September 9, 48 hours after the broadcast, Mr. Yousaf, a 75 year-old rice trader and district chief of the Ahmadi sect was killed on his way to prayer in Nawab Shah, Sindh province. Yousaf was fired on from people on motor bikes, and sustained three bullet wounds. He died on the way to the hospital. The assailants had taken a route past a police station. No one was arrested. The Ahmadi sect was declared non-Islamic sect on September 7, 1974, through a constitutional amendment, and was labeled a minority sect. Since then, there has been open hatred of the sect by certain Islamic circles and fundamentalists across the Muslim world, and sect members suffer widespread discrimination. Ahmadi followers are not allowed to bury their dead in the ordinary grave yards of Muslims, and many of those buried before 1974 were shifted by fundamentalists. Since 1984 (when statistics have been compiled) around 93 Ahmadis have been killed for their allegiance to their sect, with four killed so far this year, including Dr. Ghulam Sarwar on March 19 in Faisalabad, Punjab province and Mr. Basharat Mughal on February 24 in Karachi. The Dr. Siddiqui is the 15th medical doctor killed since 1984. REFERENCES: PAKISTAN: Two persons murdered after an anchor person proposed the widespread lynching of Ahmadi sect followers September 10, 2008 http://www.humanrights.asia/news/urgent-appeals/AHRC-UAC-203-2008 PAKISTAN: No action taken against Geo TV presenter who incited Muslims to murder members of Pakistan minority on air September 18, 2008 http://www.humanrights.asia/news/ahrc-news/AHRC-STM-244-2008 Ahmadi massacre silence is dispiriting The virtual conspiracy of silence after the murder of 94 Ahmadis in Pakistan exposes the oppression suffered by the sect Declan Walsh guardian.co.uk, Monday 7 June 2010 14.59 BST http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/jun/07/ahmadi-massacre-silence-pakistan

Who is to be believed in the Fascist Jang Group on activism of Jang Group and GEO TV AGAINST Adultery Law? Imran Aslam or Pedophile Nayyar Zaidi http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008%5C09%5C14%5Cstory_14-9-2008_pg3_3 of the same Jang Group. 

2006: New Hudood laws at US behest Nayyar Zaidi Saturday, September 16, 2006 WASHINGTON: The State Department’s report on “International Religious Freedom” during 2006 appears to provide a unique insight into the Pakistani government’s efforts to produce a “reformed” version of the 1984 Hudood Ordinance by last Monday. The report informs that “(US) Embassy officials pressed members of parliament and the government to revise blasphemy laws and the Hudood Ordinances to minimise abuses”. On the other hand, it perhaps also provides an equally unique insight into why something that appeared to be a “done deal” last Friday disintegrated by not only the efforts of the Muttahida Majlis-Amal (MMA) but also such “yours truly” type liberals as the Pakistan People’s Party Parliamentarians (PPPP) and a modern equivalent of “you, too, Brutus”, ie the Muttahida Qaumi Movement, an ally of the government. The report minces no words when it says: “The government failed to protect the rights of religious minorities. Discriminatory legislation and the government’s failure to take action against societal forces hostile to those who practice a different faith fostered religious intolerance and acts of violence and intimidation against religious minorities.” Add this to the long list of government’s “failures” to reign in the al-Qaeda and Taliban and you can guess the temperatures inside the Oval Office September 22 when George W Bush meets General Pervez Musharraf.

But there were silver linings as well and both the government and the Muttahida Majlis Amal (MMA) are given some credit for efforts to reduce religious tensions and create religious harmony in Pakistan. According to the report, “(T)he government maintained its public calls for religious tolerance, worked with moderate religious leaders to organise programmes on sectarian harmony and interfaith understanding, maintained its ban on and actively attempted to curb the activities of sectarian and terrorist organisations, implemented a registration scheme for Islamic religious schools known as madrassahs, and proceeded with reform of the public education curriculum designed to end the teaching of religious intolerance.” Although not all but “some members of the MMA made efforts to eliminate their rhetoric against Christians, Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists and Parsis. Under government pressure, many of its leaders joined various interfaith efforts to promote religious tolerance. Religious leaders, representing the country’s six major Shia and Sunni groups, issued a religious injunction in May 2005 banning sectarian violence and the killing of non-Muslims”. But in spite of these efforts, the report noted, “relations between religious communities were tense. Societal discrimination against religious minorities was widespread and societal violence against such groups occurred. Societal actors, including terrorist and extremist groups and individuals, targeted religious congregations. More than 110 deaths accrued from sectarian violence... large numbers of victims came from both Sunni and Shi’a sects”. It is duly noted that the followers of Aga Khan and the “Zikirs” are off the hook and religious rhetoric against them is “eliminated”. Christians have no complaints about the government policy. Their fears are based on “societal pressures” that may force them into “self censorship”.

The report highlights alleged discrimination and mistreatment of the Ahmadiyya sect. “The embassy carefully monitored treatment of the Ahmadiyya community. During discussions with Islamic religious leaders, embassy officials urged reconciliation with the Ahmadiyya community and an end to persecution of this minority group. Embassy officials also raised and discussed treatment of the Ahmadis with members of parliament, encouraging an eventual repeal of anti-Ahmadi laws and a less severe application in the interim”. Some examples of discrimination against the Ahmadis included: “While the constitution guarantees the right to establish places of worship and train clergy, in practice, Ahmadis suffered from restrictions on this right. According to press reports, the authorities continued to conduct surveillance on the Ahmadis and their institutions. Several Ahmadis’ places of worship reportedly have been closed; others reportedly have been desecrated or had their construction stopped. For example, on June 18, 2005, police ordered the Ahmadiyya community in Pindi, Bhatian, Hafizabad, Punjab, to stop construction on a worship place at a site acquired for the purpose some 20 years before then. Police were reportedly acting on the request of the local Islamic cleric.” Contrary to this, “state funding was provided for construction and maintenance of mosques and for Islamic clergy”.

While Christians seem to have no complaints about importing and locally printing books on their faith, the same right was allegedly denied to the Ahmadis who could not distribute their religious literature openly in public. However, there were no restrictions on doing so within their own community. But the most serious accusation is that the permission to hold a conference on the finality of the Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) was a “tacit endorsement” by the government of the campaign against the Ahmadis. Also, those applying for Hajj have to sign an affidavit declaring Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as an “imposter” which is calculated to discourage and identify Ahmadi applicants.

However, there is relative improvement even on this front. “In 2005, the government enacted a law that requires senior police officials to investigate any blasphemy charges before a complaint is filed....There were only 24 blasphemy cases filed during the reporting period, a decline from 54 during the previous years’ reporting period. According to figures compiled by local NGOs, between 1986 and April 2006, 695 persons were accused of blasphemy: 362 Muslims, 239 Ahmadis, 86 Christians, and 10 Hindus. In many cases filed during the year, the accused were either released on bail or charges were dropped. Of the 695 individuals accused of blasphemy at the end of the reporting period, 22 remained in detention awaiting trial on blasphemy charges, and 9 were in prison following conviction.” Another plus: “The government did not impose onerous financial penalties due to religion....The government did not abuse converts to minority religious groups. Converts to the Ahmadiyya community were often accused of blasphemy, violations of the anti-Ahmadi laws, or other crimes.” But there were complaints that religious zealots continued to force people to convert against their wills. The government also “took steps to bolster religious freedom during the period covered by this report” and there was “a significant decline in new blasphemy and Hudood cases, approximately 44 per cent and 164 per cent from the previous reporting period, respectively. It appears that this decline could be due to the implementation of the 2005 revision to the procedures for the implementation of both the blasphemy laws and the Hudood Ordinances. Under the new procedures, senior police officials must investigate all blasphemy cases before charges are filed, and a court order must precede women’s detention under the extramarital sex provisions of the Hudood Ordinances. But who knows? By the time President Musharraf takes his seat at the breakfast table with President Bush on September 22, news of a reformed Hudood bill could be in has hands. Now that would be “timing”. REFERENCE: New Hudood laws at US behest Nayyar Zaidi Saturday, September 16, 2006 http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=3070&Cat=13&dt=9/16/2006

"QUOTE"


2. Summary: Post believes the time has come to end the contract the BBG holds with “GEO TV Network” and move it to a responsible organization. GEO is owned by the “Jang Group,” a multimedia corporation owning Urdu and English language newspapers and magazines and Urdu television stations in all major media markets in Pakistan, with cable TV contracts in the United States and elsewhere. While claiming to be moderate and neutral to USG policies, the “Jang Group” recently has increased its criticism of the USG and its policies, has engaged in anti-Semitic behavior and has specifically targeted the Ahmadi religious minority group in a television program that resulted in the death of two (including one Amcit) Ahmadis.

3. We have evidence the Jang Group is consciously publishing and broadcasting false and inflammatory stories, without regard to the fact that they could encourage violence against Americans or against U.S. interests. It is purposefully using the reach of its television network to amplify unchecked hate speech and promote violence in a brazen attempt to uphold or even increase its market share in a down economy. Post requests that the BBG cancel its contract to disseminate VOA programming through GEO. [End summary]

4. The “Jang Group” is a multimedia corporation owning Urdu and English language newspapers, magazines, and television stations in all major media markets in Pakistan with a country-wide reach.

Founded at the end of the Second World War by Mir Khalil ur Rehman. The company consists of three groups: Independent Newspapers Corporation (Pvt) Limited, News Publications (Pvt) Limited, and Independent Media Corporation (Pvt) Limited.

5. The Group Chairman and Executive Director is Mir Javed ur Rehman, the eldest son of founder Mir Khalil ur Rehman. The Group Chief Executive and Editor in Chief is his younger brother, Mir Shakil ur Rehman. The Group Editor is Mehmood Shaam (Karachi).

6. The Independent Newspapers Corporation (Pvt) Limited owns the daily Urdu language “Jang” with editions issued in Karachi, Lahore, Rawalpindi, Quetta, Multan, and London. It has a combined estimated circulation of 300,000 plus (the largest in the country). Other papers owned by group include the Urdu daily “Awaz” (Lahore), evening Urdu daily “Awam” (Karachi), evening Urdu daily “Inqilaab” (Lahore), Urdu weekly “Akhbar-e-Jehan” (Karachi), English weekly “MAG” (Karachi), and the website www.jang.com.pk.

7. News Publications (Pvt) Limited owns the English daily “The News,” with editions issued in Karachi, Islamabad, and Lahore. Its combined daily estimated circulation is 50,000.

8. Independent Media Corporation (Pvt) Limited owns Urdu language “GEO TV Network.” The satellite TV channel is headquartered in Dubai, UAE, with studios and offices in Karachi, Islamabad, and Lahore. “GEO TV Network” started in 2002 with its flagship “GEO TV,” later branching into two channels “GEO News” and “GEO Entertainment” (dramas, sitcoms, etc.). It has subsequently launched “GEO Super” (24-hour sports), “Aag” (24-hour music) and international editions including GEO UK, GEO USA, GEO Middle East, GEO Canada, GEO Europe, and GEO Japan. The Chief Executive is Mir Ibrahim Rehman (based in Karachi), the son of Mir Shakil ur Rehman and the President is Imran Aslam (Karachi).

9. Post has watched with growing concern, as “Jang Group” media entities have grown more irresponsible running erroneous and clearly unsubstantiated stories against not only USG policies and the Embassy, but also a minority religious group in Pakistan, as well as espousing anti-Semitic rhetoric. While initially this could be seen as a flexing of new found media freedoms allowed under former President Musharraf — and continued under newly-elected President Zardari – we now believe these stories are intentional and put our people at risk. The Group’s outlets have frequently been the only media outlets in Pakistan to run, without modification or qualification, releases put out by the Taliban.

Among the more egregious acts:

– On August 27, 2008, Jang Group papers ran a story claiming all USAID offices in the FATA had closed due to a threat from Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan. Not only was the story a fabrication, but it also made baseless inflammatory accusations claiming Blackwater USA was handling security and identifying an American Peshawar Consulate employee as a Jew, stating that as a Jew he should close down his offices there, “since the presence of Jewish officials in FATA would not be tolerated in any case.” ISLAMABAD 00003712 002 OF 003

– On September 7, 2008, “GEO TV Network” aired the program “Aalim Online.” The date coincided with the anniversary of a change in Pakistan’s constitution in 1974 that officially classified the Ahmadis as “non-Muslims.” The host Dr. Aamir Liaquat Hussain egged on guests about the Ahmadis. One guest responded that, “As long as this sedition is alive and even one (Ahmadi) remains on this earth, there is a need to eliminate it.” Two other guests used the Arabic phrase “Wajb-ul-Qatal (duty to kill) to describe those who believe in the Ahmadi doctrine. Dr. Hussain did not intervene to moderate the views, and in his closing statement belittled the Ahmadi founder and agreed in essence with the guests’ contention that his followers were not true Muslims. No member of the Ahmadi community was invited to speak. Two prominent Ahmadi leaders, one of them an American citizen, were murdered in Pakistan shortly after the program was televised.

– After the September 20, 2008 Marriott Hotel bombing, English language paper “The News” ran a series of baseless pieces attempting to blame the bombing on the U.S., claiming that Post had been using the hotel as a base of operations for “hundreds” of “Marines,” carrying on about steel boxes that had been moved in and out of the hotel under cover of night. When those stories petered out, it claimed that the fire that raged throughout the night of the bombing, was started by chemicals in the guest room of the one of the Americans who died in the blast. None of this was ever substantiated in any way, yet ran on the front page of the paper and was echoed by “GEO TV.”. Few of these stories were picked up by any of the other media, and completely ignored by the international press here.

– On October 23, 2008, Post’s Information Officer received a call at 2200 on the mobile telephone he reserves for press calls from someone who would not identify himself, but claimed that he had just driven by the IO’s residence, saw there were cars there, and asked if he had not been invited to a reception. The individual then asked about a resolution that had recently been passed by the Pakistani parliament, and then asked to speak to the Ambassador.

The IO was then asked about a “Daniel Pearl Lecture” he had heard the IO conducted in Karachi earlier in the week, and then inquired if the IO was Jewish. The subsequent story in “The News” took the IO’s comments out of context in a clear effort to paint a derogatory picture.

– On November 17, 2008, “GEO TV” suddenly disappeared from the airwaves in Karachi. The blackout lasted about six hours. A senior “GEO” staffer told our senior information LES that the stoppage was a result of pressure being applied by one of the political parties due to “GEO” not airing a speech by one of its politicians. Post found out subsequently that another “GEO” official disclosed to an officer of a European diplomatic mission that they had taken themselves off the air in order to blame the political party, and garner support for the station.

10. We have protested directly to reporters, editors, and the Group Chief Executive and Editor in Chief Mir Shakil ur Rehman over the consistent inaccuracy of “Jang Group” reporting, as well as their refusal to apply the most basic standards of journalistic ethics, stating that we expect to be called about and to respond to any story any entity of the group is carrying about the Embassy or its activities, and even provided them with direct telephone numbers for the IO, the PAO, and the Ambassador. Despite these efforts, the “Jang Group” has not changed its practices.

11. All of this occurs under the eye of the Group Editor who has not exercised supervision or applied good journalistic practices when assigning and reviewing stories. When queried by Post’s IO he stated that they know that many of their reporters have political agendas, are paid by ISI, military intelligence, Jamaat-e-Islami, or other interests but that they prefer not to fire or reprimand these reporters.

12. The problem of reporting rumor, innuendo, and unsubstantiated allegations is bad enough when limited to the distribution numbers of “Jang” daily or “The News.” However, it is when these stories are amplified by the “GEO TV Network” that the truly negative influence expands to substantial numbers. And all of this by their own admission is calculated to maintain or increase their market share.

13. On a recent visit to “GEO TV Network” offices in Karachi, our IO had a conversation putting all of this into context. “GEO” sees

ISLAMABAD 00003712 003 OF 003

its behavior as win-win with sensationalism and hate speech generating ratings and any attempt by authorities to rein it in allowing them to exploit their circumstance by claiming censorship.

While they realize that we (like the GOP, Brits, Canadians and many of the international reporters) find their reporting reprehensible and dangerous, we have supported them in the past, especially when President Musharraf took “GEO TV” off the air during the 2007 State of Emergency, and believe we dare not stop them lest we be seen as hypocrites. Their calculus is that we are more cowed by accusations of actively trampling their freedom of the press than we are of tacitly supporting hate speech. Therein lies the rub for the USG – at what point do we cater to consistent, blatant hate speech and intentionally inaccurate and irresponsible reporting in major daily newspapers and a country’s largest broadcaster which threatens the safety of American citizens or U.S. interests?

14. We have discussed the issue with the GOP at different levels, including President Zardari, and all are concerned by the “Jang Group’s” coverage. While wishing to grant the benefit of the doubt in order to protect the right to a free press, we believe the utter lack of any journalistic standard or editorial restraint has now proven too much to overlook.

15. Action Request: In light of this calculated behavior, post believes it is time to terminate the BBG contract to disseminate VOA programming through the “Geo TV Network.” Post recommends finding a more balanced and responsible partner with whom to deal for our media program contracts in Pakistan.“ 2008: US criticised major media group for irresponsible reporting DAWN.COM | 1st June, 2011 http://dawn.com/2011/06/01/2008-us-criticised-major-media-group-for-irresponsible-reporting/

"UNQUOTE"


ISLAMABAD: Allegations against two senior journalists, The News Editor Investigation Ansar Abbasi and Geo TV Senior Anchor Kamran Khan, of being agents of CIA and Indian agency RAW by senior PPP leader Raja Riaz and other MPs have been widely denounced by all political parties and members of civil society including stalwarts of the PPP. The MQM said in a statement that to criticise was part of democracy. "Had the PPP alleged that a few journalists are running a negative campaign against the government, no Pakistani along with the MQM would have objected, but calling someone RAW and CIA agent is condemnable." "The PPP should avoid this sort of allegations otherwise confrontation might reach the point of no return," the statement said. PML-Q spokesman Kamil Ali Agha said it was below his level to comment on an allegation hurled by Raja Riaz of the PPP. "First Raja Riaz should himself clarify about his character and then hurl allegations on journalists who expose corruption," he added. Pervaiz Shaukat, president of the Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists, while condemning the allegations hurled by PPP leaders, said anybody could differ with the news published by a journalist, but calling someone an agent of RAW and CIA did not suit to any government. REFERENCE: PPP allegations against newsmen slammed by all By Usman Manzoor Wednesday, October 20, 2010 Zi Qad 11, 1431 A.H. http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-13-1428-PPP-allegations-against-newsmen-slammed-by-all

Hamid Mir and GEO TV had said that Pakistan has lost it Territory:)
URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PX2OWWJtN4I
Capital Talk Sheikh Rasheed Fight With Hamid Mir
URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-1PLqFy9QQ&feature=related
Capital Talk Hamid Mir Exposed by Sheikh Rasheed.
URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yw_TQR4is90&feature=related
In an unprecedented move, Punjab Assembly unanimously ratified a motion, placed before the House by PML-N member Sanaullah Masti Khel, against media on Friday, according to reports. Interestingly, no assembly member opposed the said motion. The assembly also condemned the programmes being aired casting aspersions on the MPAs. Earlier, some members of the assembly including the female members delivered fiery speeches in the House blaming generals- judges-journalists nexus conspiring against the democratic dispensation. On the other hand, the media persons, sitting in the gallery, immediately left Punjab Assembly and boycotted the proceedings. Later, the journalists held a peaceful demonstration outside the assembly. The journalists raised slogans against this gang up of the lawmakers against the media, set ablaze copies of resolution in protest and chanted slogans in front of Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif and members of Punjab assembly. REFERENCE: Why media is being targeted? http://www.thenews.com.pk/blog/blog_details.asp?id=713
GEO News report proves Ajmal Kasab is Pakistani
URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQrI4WPTSUE&feature=related
Truth about Ajmal Kasab
URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hoxa8c648E&feature=related
RAWALPINDI: In the Geo News programme 'Aaj Kamran Khan Ke Saath,' the host Kamran Khan has expressed surprise that after having failed to nab killers of thousands of people, the government had identified Indian agents in the country. And it was Senior Minister in the Punjab cabinet Raja Riaz who had made the disclosure. He claimed that it was a conspiracy against democracy and also against the party that had been confronting the establishment, he said. Kamran Khan, however, reminded that in Pakistan establishment means Army. And according to Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani the government not only enjoyed best of relations with it but also had been moving ahead with it shoulder to shoulder. Gilani had made these claims while addressing the nation the other day and during those moments he was accompanied at the dais by important members of the PPP. Kamran Khan reminded that Raja Riaz, contrary to Gilani, claims from the floor of the Punjab Assembly that PPP had been confronting the establishment or the Army. Raja Riaz's views with regard to Army are well known. On December 24, 2009 he had told the media that PPP had never succumbed to dictators or the Generals. It's difficult to digest as whether PPP had become anti-state or the Jang Group and Geo, Kamran Khan said. He said the Jang Group and Geo had been pin pointing as to who had plundered the national wealth and where it had taken place? Where merit had been flouted and where poor people are being killed just because of the incompetent government. He said it was a well-thought and well-conceived plan and Jang and Geo had fallen victim to it. REFERENCE: After failing to nab killers, govt finds Indian agents: Kamran News Desk Wednesday, October 20, 2010 Zi Qad 11, 1431 A.H. http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-13-1426-After-failing-to-nab-killers-govt-finds-Indian-agents-Kamran
Credibility of Ansar Abbasi and Sources of Ansar Abbasi is being revealed by his own colleague i.e. Nazir Naji.
Jang Group Journalists declaring each other Agent - 1 (Capital Talk 5th Nov 2009)
URL: http://youtu.be/6-OxcQhbRNE Jang Group Journalists declaring each other Agent - 2 (Capital Talk 5th Nov 2009)
URL: http://youtu.be/5mooEXfaT9w Jang Group Journalists declaring each other Agent - 3 (Capital Talk 5th Nov 2009)
Jang Group Journalists declaring each other Agent - 4 (Capital Talk 5th Nov 2009)
URL: http://youtu.be/jdsDXJ-dhuw
LAHORE: Following some heated arguments between the PML-N and the PPP MPAs over corruption scandals, the PPP parliamentary leader and Senior Minister Raja Riaz, speaking on a point of order, started criticising Daily Jang, Geo News and its senior reporters including Kamran Khan and Ansar Abbasi. The PPP minister claimed that Kamran Khan, the famous Geo TV anchorperson, presented 560 news stories solely on President Asif Zardari, mainly to target him. He alleged that Ansar Abbasi was also working on the same agenda, i.e. to weaken democracy in Pakistan. He termed both the senior journalists ‘Indian agents’. He said for the last two-and-a-half years, the PPP leadership was being targeted by the media and these journalists, though the coalition government wanted to strengthen democracy. At this point, no one from the house, especially from the PML-N, rose to defend the Jang Group, Geo News and senior journalists. Raja Riaz also claimed that the PPP leaders were ready to appear before the courts whether they are summoned in the morning, afternoon or in the evening. The entire PPP camp comprising Punjab Finance Minister Tanvir Ashraf Kaira, IT Minister Farooq Ghurki, Revenue Minister Haji Ishaq and all other members thumped desk in support of Raja Riaz’ remarks against Jang and Geo. REFERENCE: PPP rulers catch journalist agents of America, India! Updated at: 0931 PST, Tuesday, October 19, 2010 http://geo.tv/10-19-2010/73082.htm
PPP's Leadership About Indian Agent - 19 October 2010 - 1 URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTQom6Sj3hY
GEO TV colloborates with the Voice of America, which is an official news arm of the government of the United States. Yet, GEO claims to be indpendent and objective.
As per a note blogger "Cafe Pyala" "QUOTE"
Guess who was spotted on November 9 in Washington D.C. at a reception for American and Pakistani media personnel thrown by US AfPak ambassador Richard Holbrooke's media assistant Ashley Bommer? Mir Ibrahim Rehman, scion of the house of Jang and CEO of the Geo TV Network. He walked in with The Friday Times editor and Dunya TV's Najam Sethi but stayed long after Sethi left the party.
Mir Ibrahim Rehman (c) at his master's convocation earlier this year
Mir Ibrahim (MIR) apparently jetted in for a mysterious three-day visit to the US, during which, our sources say, the main objective was to convince the US administration that Geo was neither anti-US nor anti-democracy, the line being peddled by the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) government. MIR also wished to gather official American support for the Jang Groupagainst the PPP boycott of the group as an instance of an assault on freedom of the media. Our sources claim that MIR did not find too much traction among US officials against the idea of a media boycott, perhaps because the Obama administration itself has a similar boycott against Fox News (albeit without the shoe-throwing rent-a-demos and vile grafitti scrawlsagainst Fox News owners). However, what is particularly interesting about the Jang Group's attempts to woo the American establishment is the fact that there has been apparently a lot of discussion within the US government about whether it should support and even subsidize a media group that has no qualms about running shrill propaganda against the US, and sometimes even promoting a pro-Taliban line. In particular, Hamid Mir's contribution to whipping up Blackwater hysteria in Pakistan, Ansar Abbasi's rants about Western puppets, and the space given to nutjobs such as Zaid Hamid (Aag TV) and Ahmad Quraishi (Aag TV and The News) have apparently raised quite a few eyebrows in the US administration. The Americans have reason to be upset with the Jang Group, and MIR has reasons to find their upset unsettling. The running of the banal American propaganda Voice of America (VoA) programme Khabron Se Aagay[Beyond the Headlines] as an 'advertorial' on Geo since 2005 has netted the Jang Group and its owners, by some accounts, millions of US taxpayer dollars. Although the exact 'compensation package' doled out to Geo by the US government is still secret, it should be noted that the deal between Geo and VoA was mediated during the Bush-Musharraf era by the then Information Secretary Anwar Mahmood and advertising whiz-kid Asif Salahuddin, the latter of whom is reputed not to touch 'small' deals. Apparently, part of MIR's discussions with the US administration included those on the future of the Geo-VoA deal. Incidentally, while Najam Sethi was ostensibly in the US for medical check-ups and may have been present at the Bommer reception only coincidentally, as we have reported in the past, he too has been trying to persuade American-backed NGOs to fund a new 'liberal' channel to be headed by him. Coming back to MIR, it seems that more than American upset, a potential threat of withdrawal of lucrative financial support may be the trigger for a panic at the Jang Group. As they say, bullshit may walk but it's money that talks. I have a strong feeling that you may well see the (media) house line shifting very soon. If you suddenly begin to miss the casual anti-US vitriol in the group's publications and on Geo, you'll know why. REFERENCE: Money Talks TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2010 http://cafepyala.blogspot.com/2010/11/money-talks.html
"UNQUOTE"

Thursday, February 23, 2012

Jinnah, Ashraf Ali Thanvi & Haroon ur Rasheed - Part 5

MEN such as Mohammed Ali Jinnah are more controversial when dead than when alive. The film now being shot, entitled simply Jinnah, the name by which the founder of our country wished to be known and recognised, has been made controversial. Nothing new, nothing surprising, given the moral and intellectual dishonesty that swamps this country. Jinnah achieved what few have achieved. Stanley Wolpert, who has written the best biography of the man so far published, which was also made controversial, summed up Jinnah with perfection in the opening lines of his
preface:

Few individuals significantly alter the course of history. Fewer still modify the map of the world. Hardly anyone can be credited with creating a nation-state. Mohammed Ali Jinnah did all three. When Wolpert s book, Jinnah of Pakistan, was published by Oxford University Press-New York in 1984, OUP- Pakistan immediately imported 500 copies. But, before putting it up for sale, OUP sent two copies to Zia s information ministry, the men of which upon reading it immediately took hypocritical umbrage at two factual paragraphs and one sentence relating to Jinnah s eating and drinking habits. The ministry confiscated the remaining 498 copies, and distributed them to visiting dignitaries and to in-favour intellectuals of this land who it was felt would not be incapacitated by the truth. The government later relented and informed OUP that the book could be reprinted and distributed were Wolpert to agree to delete the passages imagined to be offensive. Wolpert, naturally, rejected outright the absurd suggestion. It was not until 1989, when Wolpert was called in by Benazir Bhutto to write a biography of her father, that it was reprinted by OUP in its unexpurgated version and found its way into our bookshops.



Now to the film, Jinnah. This present controversy has been blown up by one newspaper which has printed a sustained series of front-page and other articles mainly by an unnamed special correspondent . The man writing these pieces should have had the courage of his convictions and put his name to what was written. This controversy can only further the cause of violent religious bigotry, which this present government is doing its best to curb, and to stir up anti-Indian feelings at a time when the government is taking steps towards solving some of the differences with our neighbour. The objections of the newspaper in question are to a script it claims existed in September last year. Now, film scripts are updated and changed from day to day. I have gone through the script, as it is now, and have found nothing in it that can possibly be termed, by even the most hard-core bigot, either anti-Islamic, anti-Pakistani, anti-Jinnah or anti-anything. There is no mention of any angel, let alone Gabriel, and there is no boatman telling Jinnah to shut up , as has been trumpeted by the publication in question. In fact, it is apparent that those making the film have been most careful to ensure that the sensibilities of the run-of-the-mill tunnel-minded opinionated monomaniacs of this land are well protected from illusory hurt.


Making a film on Jinnah is not easy. One has to be imaginative, which producer-director Jamil Dehlavi undoubtedly is. Jinnah s life was neither dramatic nor stirringly heroic, nor the stuff of which epics are made. He was never a self-styled martyr, he never went to jail, he never went on hunger strike, he never led marches or processions, he indulged in no political gimmicks. He made his point and got what he wanted through calm and determined negotiation. He was an Anglo-Saxon by bent and training, he was a man of strong secular beliefs, forward- looking, shrewd, who knew well the difference between religion and religiosity. He had a flexibility of spirit and mind qualities lacking in the men and women for whom he made a country. He wanted a modern Pakistan, in tune with the democratic liberal world. One excellent thing the script writers have done is to include a scene showing Jinnah speaking to the Constituent Assembly in Karachi on August 11, 1947, when he set forth for the future framers of the constitution of this land what was, in essence, his creed:

If we want to make this great state of Pakistan happy and prosperous we should wholly and solely concentrate on the well- being of the people. You are free. Free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of worship in this state of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business of the state... my guiding principle will be justice and fair play without any prejudice or ill-will, partiality or favouritism. We must root out the poison of nepotism and corruption. And I am sure with your support and co-operation I can look forward to Pakistan becoming one of the greatest nations of the world.

Alas, none of this was to be. Jinnah died too soon, leaving behind too few honest men of vision. Akbar S. Ahmed, the executive producer of the film is also a controversial figure, either liked or strongly disliked. He is a professor of anthropology who has held the Iqbal Chair at Cambridge for the past five years, and a Fellow of Selwyn College. Such positions are not attained by sycophancy or by clout, but by merit, when a man is recognised for his intellectual worth. He is also on the panel chosen by the Prince of Wales to advise him on the various projects relating to ethnic minorities in Britain. The newspaper, which for its own peculiar reasons, has chosen to churn and stir up public opinion about everything to do with the film, objects to the choice of Christopher Lee to play Jinnah, on the ground that 40 years ago he acted as Dracula. In his career, this fine character actor has acted in some 260 films, in countless different and divergent roles. He is 74 years old, he looks, walks and talks like Jinnah, and he can in no way be termed anti-Pakistan. A ludicrous charge to bring against him. An objection has also been made to Shashi Kapoor, an internationally famed actor who happens to be an Indian and a Hindu. Is criticism on these two grounds at all valid or logical? Since he is being constantly mobbed in the lobby of his hotel and when he goes out to the set, it seems that the sane and sensible Pakistani has no objections to him at all. Jinnah certainly had no objections to Hindus. One of his closest friends and confidants was Kanji Dwarkadas.

I do not claim to be an authority on Jinnah, but I can make an assessment of what the man was like from the stories and anecdotes I have heard about him in my childhood and youth from his contemporaries. Jinnah was in and out of the Karachi and Bombay houses of H.J. Rustomjee, my mother s grandfather, and spent much time with his sons, Pestonjee and Dhunjishaw. And I used to hear much about him from my father, and from his architect, Dinshaw Daruwalla, and his personal legal adviser, Minocher Kotwal. My advice to the producers was to show Jinnah, the man, as those close to him knew him Muslims, Hindus, Parsis and British to show him as he was, a normal human being with no false pretensions, who behaved as a normal human being, was treated like one, and who enjoyed the good things that life has to offer. Had they done so, the film would surely be banned in this land of myths and delusions and thus make a lot of money. But they did not want to risk it. The film is being funded by private enterprise and the government, who are satisfied with its veracity and viability. Let it be seen and then let the controversy begin. Some will like it, some will not, there will be much valid and invalid criticism. Let those now criticising it, before it is made, make their own film on Jinnah, a better one. No one is stopping them. We will cheer them on. The timing of a film on Jinnah and his life is important. Few in the West are really interested in Jinnah. A film on him, under normal circumstances, would find a poor audience. But there will be interest in him and his times later this year when the 50th anniversary of the loss of the Indian Empire is commemorated with much fanfare. This is the ideal time for Jinnah to be released and shown, when the flame of the old dead Raj flares briefly again. Let thousands of people who have barely heard the name Jinnah learn about him, his achievement, and his place in history. REFERENCE: Mohammed Ali Jinnah By Ardeshir Cowasjee DAWN WIRE SERVICE Week Ending : 15 March 1997 Issue : 03/11 http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/1997/15Mar97.html#moha




Dr Safdar Mehmood & Haroon ur Rasheed have been trying their best so construct a bridge between Secular Jinnah & Deobandi Scholar Ashraf Ali Thanvi to Islamize Muhammad Ali Jinnah and Pakistan, and each time Dr Safdar Mehmood & Haroon ur Rasheed create/concoct a lie to achieve the desired result ends up in more confusion. Pakistani Scholars are strange, they have several version of Ideologies/Islam to concoct Alleged Islamic Ideologies of Pakistan e.g. on Blasphemy Law they follow Traditionalists, while executing/implementing the Blasphemy Law these ideologues target the most marginalized section of the society i.e. Minorities whereas spare Blatant Blasphemers within the Mullah Community (Deobandi, Barelvi, Shia books are riddled with Blasphemy and their Mullahs often resort to worst kind of Blasphemy in the name of respective Fiqh), same Ideologues adopt a criminal silence on the practice of Blatant and Brazen Apostasy/Disbelief e.g. Practice of Sorcery openly in Pakistan & Promoted through Pakistani TV Channels. Above mentioned Alleged Scholars shamelessly quote Apostate Masnoor Hallaj & Blasphemer Ali Hajweri in their Daily Jang Column without any check or any threat of use of Blasphemy Law from any quarter for quoting Blasphemous Sufis. Dr Safdar & Haroon ur Rasheed & their partners in crime e.g. Mujib ur Rehamn Shami (Dunya TV) and Irfan Siddiqui (Daily Jang) take one more giant step they often praise Mawdudi (Founder of Jamat-e-Islami) whose Blasphemous Views on Prophets (Peace be upon them) & Companions of Prophet Mohammad (May Allah be pleased with all of them) are not a secret. Irony is that Dr Safdar/Haroon ur Rasheed are praising Mawlana Ashraf Ali Thanvi & Jinnah's alleged connections, conveniently forget about the Religious Edicts (Fatwas), Books, even Fatwa of Apostasy issued by the very same Deobandi Scholars on Mawdudi and Jamat-e-Islami. It is requested that Dr Safdar Mehmood & Haroon ur Rasheed would also reveal the Fatwa of Apostasy against Jinnah and Fellow Alleged Founders of Pakistan, and Fatwas were issued by Barelvi, Deobandi, Jamat-e-Islami Scholars.


Wednesday, February 22, 2012, Rabi-ul-Awal 29, 1433 A.H.
http://jang.com.pk/jang/feb2012-daily/22-02-2012/col2.htm





Tuesday, February 14, 2012, Rabi-ul-Awal 21, 1433 A.H.
http://jang.com.pk/jang/feb2012-daily/14-02-2012/col2.htm




Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Deoband & Sex Education - 5


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0nrCk0S76g

Shamaaim-e-Imdadiyah

Quote 1: Shamaaim-e-Imdadiyah, p.35 and 36 - In Shamaaim-e-Imdadiyah, a story of a Fakir (hermit) who believed in Wahdat al-Wajood is mentioned. After approving the Aqeedah of the Faqir, the author says: “It is Shirk to differentiate between the worshiper (Aabid) and the Worshiped (Ma'bud)… To summarize, based upon the explanations of our predecessors, we understand that this position is Haqq (true) and there is no doubt about it. However, its reality is experienced only when a disciple becomes distant from his own self by striving hard and ignoring every danger. Because when a person becomes unaware of his self, he is unaware of everything. Nothing remains in his thoughts or his sight except Allah. Therefore, all concentration of the disciple is upon Allah. When nothing distracts his attention and he meditates his mind on Allah; then when he opens his eyes, he sees nothing but Allah. (At this stage) the Dhikr of Hu Hu (He He) turns to Ana Ana (Me Me). This stage is called Fanah der Fanah … (Similarly) from the special Ummah, Ba Yazid Bastami said: ‘Subhaani maa Aadhaam-Shaani (Glory be to me, Far removed am I from all imperfections, how great is my state) and Mansoor Hallaj said: ‘Anal-Haqq’ (I am the Truth)

Quote 2: Shamaaim-e-Imdadiyah, p.42 - “In the stage of Uboodiyyah (The state of being Abd or worshiper), there are three meanings of the Kalimah – “Laa ilaha illa Allah”, Laa Ma’bood (Nobody is worthy of worship), Laa Matloob (Nobody is desired) and, Laa Mowjood (None exists), the last being the loftiest stage.”

Quote 3: Shamaaim-e-Imdadiyah, p.49 - Ashraf Ali Thanvi mentions the explanation of the Hadeeth, “Whoever sees me then he has indeed, seen the Truth.” to mean that the one who sees the Prophet, he has Indeed, seen Allah.” REFERENCE: Quotes from the books of the Deobandis http://www.ahya.org/tjonline/quotes/index.html

Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Deoband & Sex Education - 6


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_d3cGHv72U







THERE are two ways in which we can honour the memory of Quaid- i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah. The first is that we order our national lives in accordance with the guidelines he set for his vision of Pakistan. The second is that we allow him to rest in peace. The first is too idealistic and it has not suited the successive cliques or coteries or in-groups who have assumed or seized leadership through manipulation or subterfuge or force majeure and become the custodians of our lives, become what is sneeringly called the ruling elite. The second too is not possible since we have decided to observe his birth and death anniversary and these occasions provide an opportunity to issue messages that reek of earnestness and sanctimonious humbug and to hold meetings and seminars where speakers invariably lament weepily our departure from his principles. There is too the ritual of visits to his Mazaar and any one who assumes public office, places a wreath on his grave, converting the visit, into a photo-opportunity. This has become a mechanical exercise, something that comes with the job. It goes without saying that the Quaid would have thoroughly disapproved of this kind of an homage as he would have thoroughly disapproved of the shambles we have made of his dream. Now a film on him is being produced and it has created a fierce controversy even before a foot of the film has been shot. It is hard to pin down the precise objections to the film beyond the fact that, in the perception of the critics, the wrong people are involved in the production of the film and there are serious misgivings about their motives.

As the controversy heats up, bits and pieces of the supposed script have been somewhat mysteriously released to the press. Objection too has been taken to the casting of a Mr Christopher Lee as Jinnah, the objection being based on the fact that the actor has played the role of Dracula in the past. Objection too has been taken to the choice of the director Mr Jamil Dehlavi, whose past, according to these critics, has been shady. And there is Mr Shashi Kapoor who has been cast as the narrator who is an Indian and, therefore, creates his own turbulence. And looming over all these is the major domo of the project Prof. Akbar S. Ahmed. Let me make it clear that I know none of these people either personally or by reputation. I have read the names of Shafqat Jamote and Shariffudin Pirzada as having some connection with the film. These two I know and have for them both, respect and affection and in the case of Shariffudin Pirzada also admiration. My friend Ardeshir Cowasjee has given him the jolly sounding name of Jadoogar. It has been said of him that asked by Ziaul Haq to produce a rabbit from a hat he produced the Eighth Amendment. No ordinary rabbit but Bugs Bunny!

Not knowing any of the people involved in the film, I also know nothing of film making. I cannot offer any opinion on whether the right people are making the film or whether the script, snatches of which I have read in the newspapers, shows up the Quaid-i-Azam as a caricature, as the critics maintain or as a great leader as the producers insist. We will only know when the film has been completed.

It is necessary, however, to obtain some sort of clarification about the funding of the film. Is it being privately financed or has the Government of Pakistan some financial stake in it? The idea of wanting to know is to fix the responsibility as regards the end-product. But let me put this film in perspective. In 1983 Sir Richard Attenborough made a film on Gandhi. The film was widely acclaimed and I wrote a column on it, that is to say, 14 years ago. Much of what I wrote applies to the present controversy. I had written that our own response to the Gandhi film was that there should be one on the Quaid-i-Azam. The point I made was that it was irksome that the interest in a film on the Quaid has been triggered by the fact that a film on Gandhi has been made. In other words, it is a reaction and one wonders whether there would be this clamouring for the film on the Quaid had there not been one on Gandhi. It would be banal to suggest that it would have been more appropriate that we should have wanted a film on the Quaid for the fact that he was the Father of the Nation rather than merely because we have been scooped by a film on Gandhi , I argued.

Those who are now demanding that the script of the film should be vetted by the government don t entirely realise what they are asking for. This too I had anticipated. How would one circumvent the bureaucracy that inevitably would want to get involved? There are so many questions that can be asked. Film making is highly creative. It brooks no compromise. How will a consensus be reached on what the general direction of the film will be? And how will the film deal with those who sat out the battle but claimed the booty? I had asked.

I concluded the column by offering this advice: Perhaps, it might be simpler to forget about the film and pay our respects, instead, by working for a Pakistan that the Quaid so avowedly wished for its people. I think this advice is still good. But whatever my personal views may be on the subject of the film, there is in the raging controversy an element of pre-censorship. It does not seem fair to me that something should be condemned even before it has taken shape. Once again we find that we are not allowing the Quaid-i- Azam to rest in peace. One wishes that the same concern and anger would have been shown about the direction of the country which appears to be going nowhere than about a film. REFERENCE: The Jinnah film Omar Kureishi
DAWN WIRE SERVICE Week Ending: 15 March 1997 Issue : 03/11 http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/1997/15Mar97.html#thej

Pakistani Movie Jinnah. English Version Full Movie


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDSqaJIkTS4

Playwright Imran Aslam has not forgotten Jinnah neither the man nor the movie. For the former he has nothing but veneration for the latter, unalloyed venom. Akbar S. Ahmad’s brainchild, Jinnah did not do well at the box-office, and remained mired in controversies from the word go. Billed as a belated answer to Richard Attenborough’s eight Oscar-winning Gandhi, Mr Ahmad’s movie had been tainted by allegations of monetary improprieties even before it was released. “My contention is that Mr Jinnah needs not to be shown as an apologist in a movie. People voted with their feet. They walked away from the movie,” argues Mr Aslam with an unmistakable note of acerbity in his voice. Imran Aslam denies that he engineered a virulent media campaign against Ahmad’s movie, Jinnah, because he had been rejected for Muhammad Ali Jinnah’s role after what he calls a perfunctory audition. “Let me tell you about my meeting at a friend’s place with Edward Fox who played Mountbatten in Jinnah. Mr Fox did not know who I was. He struck up a conversation with me. Before long we were talking as if we were great friends. Then he started telling me about the barbed criticisms that the movie was getting. He said: ‘You know there is this mad editor who wanted to play ‘Jinnah’ and who is now out to destroy the movie. He’s laid a siege to our houses. If I met him, I would wring his neck.’ I promptly stuck out my neck, and said: ‘Here’s the neck.’ You could have knocked Mr Fox down with a feather when he learnt that I was Imran Aslam. He said: ‘If I had not met you, I would have thought you have horns.’ “

True, Aslam does not have horns. But a large number of people would say that he has a screw loose when told that he has made a movie which he claims depicts the real Mr Jinnah. “I have made my movie. It is called Yours sincerely, M.A. Jinnah. I asked M.A. Jinnah to write the script of the movie.” Elaborating his point, Aslam said: “M.A. Jinnah unfortunately did not write his biography. But he wrote enough. He wrote letters and speeches, and they constitute the script of the movie.” Directed by Imran Aslam’s brother, Nasser Aslam, film editor from the British Film Institute, the movie comprises 26 episodes, each six minutes long.

“There are no characters in the movie except the sole spokesman,” explains Imran Aslam. He adds that the movie has been shot by his brother Nasser’s wife, Natalie Wulfing, who is a trained camerawoman. When asked who plays Jinnah in the movie, he replies cryptically: “I merely read the letters.”

Aslam stresses that no accusations of fiscal shenanigans can sully his movie. His hint is too broad to be lost on the well-informed. “We did not raise any chanda for the film. The people of Pakistan, the few that we approached, gave a lot.” “For the last three months, Pakistan Television has been sitting on the movie. I met PTV Managing Director, Yousuf Baig Mirza and gave him the film.” It is indeed surprising that PTV is taking so long to run the movie; more so in view of the fact that the script of the movie draws completely on the Quaid-i-Azam’s speeches and letters to his contemporaries, such as undivided India’s last viceroy, Lord Mountbatten, Mahatama Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, “showboy of Congress,” Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, George Lloyd and others. If PTV requires more than two months to censor the words of the founder of the country, one wonders how long it will take to examine the words of foreigners. “I have made this movie for the young who see M.A. Jinnah only on currency notes or in pictures hung on walls. There is more than one situation in the movie which shows how astute, far-sighted and open-minded Mr Jinnah was. Gandhi and Jinnah were poles apart. Gandhi used to keep saying he was a four-anna member of the Congress. Mr Jinnah’s retort is quotable. He said: ‘Mr Gandhi, when will you clothe yourself with authority?’ Mr Jinnah is my hero. Let his words speak for themselves,” contends Aslam. This writer is “one of the few privileged people” in Mr Aslam’s words, to have seen a preview of his movie. Due to intelligently applied make-up and his remarkable resemblance to Mr Jinnah, Imran appears a faithful reflection of the Quaid-i-Azam. He seems to have borne Sarojini Naidu’s words in mind when she described Mr Jinnah’s appearance thus: “Tall and stately, but thin to the point of emaciation, languid and luxurious of habit, Mohammad Ali Jinnah’s attenuated form is a deceptive sheath of a spirit of exceptional vitality and endurance.” REFERENCE: Another Jinnah on the screen By Bahzad Alam Khan July 21, 2002 http://archives.dawn.com/weekly/images/archive/020721/images3.htm

It was meant to be the final cinematographic word, the officially sanctioned version of the life of Pakistan’s founder, Mohammad Ali Jinnah. But it has generated so much controversy that the government, which commissioned it, is now having second thoughts about it. The film on Jinnah was commissioned by Pakistan President Farooq Ahmed Khan Leghari and the interim government which ruled Pakistan between November 1996 and February 1997, to honour the leader in the 50th year of its independence. Budgeted at 3 million pounds, it is produced by Pakistan Television. The film generated controversy even before shooting began, with the selection of Christopher Lee, famous for his portrayal of Dracula, to play Jinnah. Professor Akbar Ahmed, a bureaucrat, anthropologist, scholar, is currently shooting the controversial film on the Quaid-e-Azam in Karachi. Soon after Ahmed and his crew arrived, some newspapers in Karachi started a campaign to denounce the film. Leading this protest is Imran Aslam, the editor of The News. He cannot be completely objective since Ahmed screentested him too for the protagonist's role. "They are trying to trivialise the whole thing by trying to put the blame on me," says an angry Aslam in a telephone interview from his office in Karachi. "It is not about me being spited; I was approached 10 years ago by Robert Mulligan to play the role of Jinnah." But he makes it clear he does not like the central character.

"The selection of Christopher Lee to play Jinnah is like making Mukri play the role of Gandhi," he says. Ahmed admits having auditioned Aslam, but says, "We finally chose Christopher Lee because he bears a striking resemblance to Jinnah." That is enough to incense the fans of the famous leader. "His age is perfect, he speaks and acts the part with great dignity. Our motive was to get the best person possible to portray this part," he concludes. Richard Linton plays the younger Jinnah. The movie begins with Jinnah in the dock, answering accusations. The idea is that Jinnah is waiting to go to heaven and is explaining himself. "The film is a mix of Time Bandits and Salman Rushdie. It looks like someone wrote the script in a daze of hash," says Aslam, attacking the film.

The other grouse critics have is Shashi Kapoor playing what appears to be the archangel Gabriel. Shashi Kapoor laughs as he exclaims, " Oh no! I'm not playing the archangel. There is none in the film. I play the role of the narrator -- it is similar to the role of the sutradhar in Indian (drama); it’s like the chorus in plays of Shakespeare. My character is in limbo; it’s a mix of fiction and abstract… There have been all kinds of malicious rumours springing up, mostly from the newspapers in Karachi, though things have quietened down now." Professor Ahmed clarifies, "It’s a device we have used to give the background and explain the historical situations to the audience of the younger generation."

The current government led by Nawaz Sharief, who has his own axe to grind with Leghari, has asked his minister for cultural affairs Mushahid Hussain to scrutinise the script and delete objectionable scenes. Hussain, who is also Sharif’s advisor on media affairs, said the government has blocked funds for the film "The script is… being scrutinised right now," he said in a telephone interview, adding, "They wanted additional funds of one million pounds which will be given after I have gone through the script. They are currently shooting with the money in their kitty." He said he could not reveal which scenes were objectionable because the script is confidential material..." He said the ministry had a lot of work to look into " so, inshahallah, we will be through with the script soon." Professor Ahmed claims the authorities are solidly behind him. "Nearly 30 per cent of the film has been shot, and we have all support from the government. It would have been impossible to shoot without their help." He even claimed funds were not withheld, "otherwise, we would not have been able to shoot the film. Whatever the controversy is it is in the local papers because one gentleman in particular has been spited." In the midst of all the flak, Shashi Kapoor is at peace. "The atmosphere is very congenial," he says. "Apne hi log hain, yaar. The same people, the same culture, you don't feel like you are shooting outside India. I'm honoured to be part of a film that will create history." Kapoor was contacted by director Jameel Dehalvi for a project years ago, but the film did not materialise. Then Dehalvi asked whether he would work on a project that would take 11 weeks. "I said, well, that is a pretty long time and I had not even read the script. But on reading it, I liked it very much and was thrilled to do the film," he says in a telephone interview from his hotel in Karachi.

He finds the whole thing very touching. "The crowd scenes are very moving to watch. When Jinnah walks through the crowds, we actually had old men who were not part of the crew touching him… It reminded me of… the shooting of Gandhi… in Bombay and Delhi. The people here treat him with such reverence." For all that, Shashi Kapoor has been provided security by the producers. "Not that there is any problem. I do move about, I go to people’s houses for lunches, to the Sindh club… It’s a very nice place, with really great people. After all we are one and the same." He is all praise for Christopher Lee. "He is a marvellous actor besides being a good human being, he is very conscious of the responsibility that he carries playing the role of the Quaid-e-Azam." Associate producer Ruby Mallick told Rediff On The NeT, "We have finished shooting most action scenes, including the refugee scenes,’’ adding shooting will continue in Pakistan till May 11 and then for two weeks in London. The 73-year-old Christopher Lee is reportedly hard at work on his role, shooting from 5 am to 9 pm. The other characters are James Fox who plays Lord Mountbatten, Sam Dastoor as Mahatma Gandhi, Indira Varma as Jinnah's wife Rati, Rashid Surhadi as Nehru, Pakistani actor Shakeel as Liaquat Ali Khan. The music is provided by Ustad Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan. "The film will be a great exposure of the Quaid-e-Azam to the world, not just the people of India and Pakistan," says Kapoor. "Very little of the man has been televised or filmed. The film is a tribute to the life and feelings of the great man." REFERENCE: 'Christopher Lee playing Jinnah is like Mukri playing Gandhi' http://www.rediff.com/news/apr/05jinnah.htm