Since its inception as a free state in 1947, Pakistan has been marred by a number of deadly conflicts. These included territorial conflicts with India and Afghanistan, secessionist movements in the Balochistan province bordering Iran, ethno-political conflict among the various ethnic groups, sectarianism and the civil-military rift. Contrary to the optimism of the founding fathers of the country, the nascent state failed to devise institutional mechanisms to address these conflicts. Over the years, these conflicts have degenerated into deadly violence. According to various human rights groups, more than two hundred thousand people have died in these ethno-security and religious conflicts. Besides the human toll, these conflicts have incurred huge economic losses. For example, it is estimated that the war against the Taliban fighters has cost the Pakistani government over two hundred billion dollars. The socio-cultural impact of these deadly conflicts is also been immense. An acute form of societal acrimony exists where people living in different parts of the country look at each other with suspicion. The decade-long violence has diminished the chances of debate and understanding, and society is sharply polarized with a rise in hate and animosity.
In the face of the breakup of the national institutions to bring some normalcy to this conflict-ridden country, the media was expected to spearhead a reconciliation process. Unfortunately, the media has proved to be a source of discord. The conflicting parties in the country are using the media for their interests and the latter has been more than willing to support them. The Pakistani media has been found to be escalatory and propagandistic. Instead of sharing all the perspectives on these conflicts to help resolve them, it has adopted an approach that is destructive to peace. As a result, despite a long history of conflict, people are ill-informed about their causes and contexts of these conflicts. People also know little about the alternatives to the prevalent perspectives and hence public opinion is often not in favor of peace and the solutions to ending violent conflict. Unfortunately, it is hard to convince local communities that their woes stem from these conflicts.
The recent spate of violence and hate incidents point to a grim situation. The media is partly responsible for this malaise for its pro-violence coverage. There is an urgent need for the media to apply greater analytical skills to explore peace-oriented strategies to these violent conflicts. These strategies should be insightful, comprehensive and clarify the possibilities of resolving conflicts.
The media in Pakistan can kick-start a process of negotiation. It can bring estranged groups together. This can be done by arranging discussion panels where conflicting parties, common people and peacemakers can be brought together. Such discussion panels already exist in various conflict zones in Pakistan in the form of traditional Jirga—a meeting place in a locality where people sit together to find solutions for a prevailing problem. The country’s most famous TV channel Geo TV runs a primetime program called Jirga where initially contentious issues were discussed and solutions were sought. Unfortunately, due to the commercial pressures, this program is now no different than other programs where issues are sensationalized to attract larger audiences.
Like in other parts of the world, the news media in Pakistan has greatly benefited from the conflicts in Pakistan. The country’s two major media organizations Jang Group and ARY Group came to the limelight soon after the 9/11 incident. Likewise, dozens of other TV channels and newspapers were established during various conflicts to provide conflict-related information. This commercial logic has driven the media towards conflict escalation instead of agents for peace. Peacemakers had hoped that an increase in media outlets would lead to a variety in content. However, this hasn’t happened.
Despite the predominance of military-sponsored propaganda content, there are some instances of peace-oriented media. On March 4, 2022, when militants attacked a mosque belonging to Shia Muslims in which 58 people were killed, the Pakistani media openly criticized the perpetrators and highlighted the broader factors that fueled this conflict. Coverage reported on the problems of common people and sympathized with those who were suffering. They called upon the government to take measures to protect minorities. One reason for this was that military and political elites were in favor of resolving the sectarian conflict, which led the media to follow the elite views.
Studies show that the military, security narratives, and the commercial interests of the media are the key barriers to practicing peace journalism. While it is difficult to change this situation in the short to medium term, journalists can opt to be creative and provide more constructive alternatives. For example, they can focus on the plight of victims and highlight their issues. Seeing their countrymen in distress can promote dialogue. Such an approach would give a new perspective on these conflicts. Likewise, most Pakistanis are unaware of the real contexts of the conflicts and simply follow the perspectives of the military elites. Detailed background information on these conflicts would lead to an informed citizenry. Contextualizing would help people know the importance of other options like peace agreements rather than the mere use of force to resolve conflicts. Similarly, the inclusion of wide-ranging political and peace perspectives in media debates would help present a transparent picture of the situation.
Featured images: Banuchi Elders ; Soldier (Bumble Dee / Adobe Stock)
Shabir Hussain
Shabir Hussain is a peace academic based in Islamabad, Pakistan. He has published extensively on the current practices of conflict coverage in Pakistan and devising peace-oriented media strategies for constructive reporting. He can be reached at shasain2@gmail.com.
