Q.1 Critically evaluate
three-year performance of the current PTI government. Strengthen your answer
with facts and figures.
Prime Minister Imran Khan, outlining the "achievements" of the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf-led coalition
government over the previous three years, pledged on Thursday to assist the nation regain its footing via development and self-sufficiency. He spoke for an hour at the release of his government's three-year performance report and stated that upon taking office in August 2018, the PTI was met with a number of "inherited issues," such as financial instability, poverty, and poor education and health facilities. However, he noted that his administration's efforts to date have resulted in a number of successes, including the implementation of a "smart lockdown strategy" to deal with the Covid-19 virus, and the subsequent ranking of Pakistan as the "third-best performing country" in dealing with the pandemic by The Economist.The current account deficit was $20
billion when we took office, but it is now down to $1.8 billion. Over $27
billion is held in foreign reserves, up from $16.4 billion last year. The new
administration has increased tax revenue from the previous government's
Rs3,800bn to Rs4,700bn. Similarly, "international remittances, which
totaled $19.9bn in 2018, have increased to $29.4bn," he noted. We will not
allow Pakistan to be used as a pawn in anybody else's battle, Prime Minister
Khan said, stressing the need to ensure Pakistan's independence.
Four governors, the chief ministers
of Punjab, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, and Balochistan, the speaker and deputy speaker
of the National Assembly, federal cabinet members, parliamentarians, and PTI
youth all attended the launching ceremony at Jinnah Convention Centre.
The federal Minister of Information
and Broadcasting, Fawad Chaudhry, presented the premier with the Ministry's
Report 2018-21.
A film chronicling Mr. Khan's 22-year
political career and his three years in office was also presented. An overview
of the work of 44 government agencies, such as ministries, divisions, and
departments, is provided in the 251-page report. Key sector objectives,
initiative updates, long-term strategies, legislative policy framework, and
forthcoming projects are highlighted, in addition to sectoral baselines. The
government's successes in the face of the worldwide economic downturn that
followed the coronavirus pandemic are highlighted in this report.
Prime Minister Khan contrasted his
administration with that of Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz supreme leader Nawaz
Sharif and Pakistan Peoples Party co-chairman Asif Ali Zardari while discussing
the key achievements of his government. He said the government had launched
initiatives like the Naya Pakistan Housing Programme to provide low-cost
housing to vulnerable populations, the Ehsaas Programme to provide social
security, and the Kamyab Jawan Programme to train young people for employment.
Furthermore, he said, 54 laws were passed to aid the poor and disadvantaged in
society. These laws include the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2020;
the Enforcement of Women's Property Rights Act, 2020; and the Legal Aid and
Justice Authority Act, 2020. These are the primary government programmes:
Development in Industry
New nuclear power plant in Karachi,
phase 2; Ravi Urban Project; affordable housing; Rs1.1 trillion Projects
including the Karachi Bundle, the Ten Billion Tree Tsunami Project, the China-Pakistan
Economic Corridor, and the Rashakai Special Economic Zone's grand opening are
all on the agenda (CPEC).
Industrial Field
Upward economic trend,
people-friendly budget, new stent production facility, Roshan Digital Account,
Roshan Apni Car and Roshan Samaji Khidmat, Electric Vehicle Policy, MG Motors
launch, structural reforms, reduction in current account deficit, expansion of
the textile industry, rise in exports and remittances, and low tariffs for
electricity and gas used in industry. Concerning issues of international
diplomacy, they include: the Kashmiri cause; the Palestinian cause; the Afghan
peace process; and the need to resist Indian propaganda. The study also
highlighted a variety of other projects, such as a geographic information system
(GIS) mapping system, Clean and Green Pakistan, the introduction of electronic
voting machines, voting rights for abroad citizens, and changes to the civil
service and increased accountability.
Honours the military
In his address, Prime Minister Khan
praised the military for its "strong reaction" to India after the
Pulwama attack. We warned Narendra Modi (India's prime minister) of terrible
repercussions for any misadventure due of our soldiers, he said.
Mr. Khan said that, similar to the
US-Taliban battle after the 9/11 attacks, Islamabad would not get involved in
anybody else's fight and would not tolerate the slaughter of its own people.
He said that the Pakistani military,
the courts, and the government had all made "mistakes" in the past,
but that now a minority of Pakistanis and some outside actors were laying the
blame for the country's present predicament in Afghanistan on the Pakistani
military. After the Afghan Taliban promised broad amnesty, preservation of
human and women's rights, and a pledge that their territory would not be used
against any other state, the prime minister encouraged the whole world to
assist them form an inclusive government in Afghanistan. This demonstrated that
they accepted the global focus during the Doha discussions. For the sake of
regional peace, "do not make presumption that they (Taliban) would back
out of their obligations and let them build an inclusive government.
Q.2 Highlight the factors
that have resulted high inflation in Pakistan. Suggest some remedies to overcome
ever increasing inflation in the country.
A nation's inflation rate may tell
you a lot about the health of its economy and the effectiveness of its
government's approach to macroeconomic policy. The most vulnerable members of
society, the poor and those on fixed incomes, benefit the most from an
inflation rate that is kept low. With a few notable exceptions, global
inflation has been declining over the last decade.
However, inflation has begun
rearing its ugly head in many areas of the globe, including Pakistan, due to
robust global development, greater population growth, rapid industrialization
and urbanisation in developing economies, and strong per capita income growth.
Amid a surge in demand for necessities, food inflation has risen to the forefront
as a major source of current worldwide inflationary pressures.
Everyone agrees that grocery store
discount days are behind us. Increases in food costs over the last year have
contributed to global inflation and have sparked demonstrations and even
violence in certain nations. Global food prices and inadequate governmental
solutions threaten to drive millions further into poverty.
The area as a whole, and Pakistan
in particular, saw an increase in inflation between 2007 and midway through
2008 due to the impact of rising food costs. This is concerning since food
price inflation has a disproportionately negative impact on low-income people
and those living on fixed incomes. Moreover, inflation, the growing fiscal cost
of food subsidies, and the negative effect on the exchange rate for net
food/energy importing nations like Pakistan all pose a danger to macroeconomic
stability as a result of the recent explosion in international food prices.
Sustaining development and
macroeconomic stability in a growing nation like Pakistan requires bringing
inflation under control. It has been shown, both empirically and theoretically,
that inflation and output are closely related (unemployment). Both very high
and extremely low rates of inflation are bad for business.
Potential growth is stifled,
hardship is imposed on the populace, resources are misallocated, the poor and
those on fixed incomes are unfairly hit, widespread confusion is sown, and
macroeconomic policies are undermined by either side. Since they cannot afford to
insulate themselves from the expenses associated with inflation or hedge
against the dangers that inflation presents, the poor and those on fixed
incomes always bear the brunt of high inflation. However, low or decreasing
inflation may also be detrimental to growth for a number of reasons. To provide
just a few examples, borrowers are in a worse position now that real rates have
turned against them and falling asset values have limited collateralized
lending and the negative wealth impact has slowed demand.
Because of the necessity to control
inflation, the government has implemented a number of measures to reduce demand
and increase supply of necessities. The State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) has
tightened monetary policy steadily over the past three years, and even more so
this fiscal year, in an effort to reduce demand pressures, while the government
has loosened its import regime and permitted the import of several essential
items in order to increase supplies and ensure a steady flow of those
commodities. To supplement the efforts of the private sector, the government
also expanded wheat, pulse, and sugar imports. The government expanded the
Utility Stores Corporation (USC), which provides staples including wheat flour,
sugar, legumes, and cooking oil/ghee at below-market costs, to help the average
person.
The government still insists on its
policy goal of promoting rapid expansion while containing inflation. On the one
hand, growth generates more employment and higher earnings, both of which have
a direct impact on lowering poverty levels. However, rising inflation is
usually accompanied with a worsening of income distribution, with the
lowest-income groups bearing the brunt of the increase in prices. The
Government is well aware of the need for delicate handling of the trade-off
between the two, and as a result has implemented a number of measures designed
to boost economic development, cut unemployment, and rein in inflation.
With February's increase in
inflation to 8.2%, inflation is back in the spotlight. It is no secret that
there'll be expenses associated with inflation. An increase in the cost of
living that outpaces income growth may be a death sentence for the poor, both
directly (for subsistence families) and indirectly (via the inability to pay
for necessary medical and health expenses). It may also cause families to have
to make the difficult decision of whether their kid should work or attend
school.
Most significantly, inflation is a
tax that reduces the value of money. Poor people who keep most of their wealth
in cash pay a disproportionate share of this tax, whereas the wealthy may
shield themselves to some extent by investing in things that provide a return,
appreciate in value, or are denominated in a stable currency (like the dollar).
Next, inflation reduces investment in initiatives that might otherwise increase
the economy's productive capacity since it increases uncertainty about the
future. Corporations shift their attention to ventures with immediate payoffs
or to foreign currency deals.
Everyone feels a loss of national
pride when inflation erodes confidence in the national currency as a store of
value. For example, by the early 1990s, the value of one Pakistani rupee had
dropped by 90% from its 1956 high, and by the mid-1970s, it had fallen by 50%
from its 1956 low. Despite its apparent size, this drop is not nearly as severe
as those in Turkey, Egypt, and Morocco. When compared to other South Asian
nations beginning in 1980, Pakistan has not performed any worse than its
neighbours.
Everyone feels a loss of national
pride when inflation erodes confidence in the national currency as a store of
value. The Pakistani rupee lost almost 50% of its value from 1956 to the
mid-1970s, and another 90% from the early-1990s. Although it may appear like a large
drop, it is really less dramatic than the ones in Turkey, Egypt, and Morocco.
And looking back to 1980 and omitting affluent nations, Pakistan does not seem
to be doing any worse than its South Asian neighbours.
Then, we inquire whether or not all
inflation is harmful and whether or not it ought to be zero. That question has
a negative response. Inflation in the double digits is now generally considered
dangerous by economists. Inflation between 3 percent and 6 percent is often
seen as beneficial, with inflation below 3 percent being potentially dangerous.
Why? If inflation is close to zero, disinflation must include nominal wage
cuts, which are politically problematic, and moderate inflation might serve as
a valuable indicator of demand pressures in normal times.
There have been two notable periods
of significant inflation in Pakistan's history: 1972–1976 and 2008–2014. Both
of these periods corresponded with historically high prices for oil on the
global market and were accompanied by increases in government and consumer
expenditure. Inflation has been on the rise in recent months, reaching into the
double digits. However, this is still a very low rate compared to that of the
recent past. In light of this, preventing large increases (which would push inflation
beyond of a target range) and protecting the poor from inflation are essential
policy concerns. Concerning the former, we point out that inflation is caused
by a number of factors rather than just one.
Money supply expansion is the
first. When there is a constant amount of money floating about but only so much
product available, prices will rise. Monetary easing may occur as a result of
cyclical spikes in capital inflows and the attendant credit/real estate booms,
as well as structural issues like fiscal dominance, when the central bank is
obliged to create money to pay fiscal deficits. The high correlation between
inflation and State Bank loans to government over the last 15 years
demonstrates that fiscal dominance has been an issue in Pakistan for a very
long time (only Egypt is worse in this regard). A boost in the tax-to-GDP ratio
to provide a safety net for public finances and a larger degree of legal and
practical autonomy for the State Bank would both contribute to a solution
(progression on this has been quite uneven).
The real estate bubble in the
mid-2000s, fuelled in large part by Gulf money, was one of the uncommon but
profound effects of a sudden influx of foreign capital. Although the government
is actively seeking investment from China and the Gulf, it must exercise
caution to ensure that this influx of resources increases economic output
rather than just driving up prices.
The second topic is the variables
that impact the cost of imports. Part of Pakistan's inflation is simply driven
by global oil price changes since the country is such a heavy oil importer and
has no significant foreign currency or fiscal buffers to minimise pass-through
to local prices. When oil prices drop (as they did from 2014 to 2016), a
government should not get credit for reduced inflation but also should not be
blamed for increased inflation (as they sporadically did in 2017-18). Pakistan,
however, cannot afford to remain at the mercy of a single, well-understood
external factor, thus the country must instead focus on developing its
hydropower, solar power, nuclear power, and clean coal resources.
A similar effect on inflation may
be seen when the value of a currency declines, however this time it affects the
cost of all imported items rather than simply oil. Unsustainable expenditure
booms (like those that followed the mid-2000s and 2014-2017), unfavourable
terms of trade shocks (such rising oil prices), and a decline in global demand
for Pakistani exports all contribute to balance of payments crises that need depreciations
as a means of recovery (as occurred during the 2008 global financial crisis).
There is nothing that governments can do to prevent depreciations when they are
necessary, but a more flexible exchange rate system may help mitigate the blow.
Depreciations have a similar impact
on inflation, albeit they increase the cost of all imported products in the
domestic market rather than simply oil. Unsustainable expenditure booms (like
those that followed the mid-2000s and 2014-2017), unfavourable terms of trade
shocks (such rising oil prices), and a decline in global demand for Pakistani
exports are all potential causes of balance of payments crises, which need
depreciations as a solution (as occurred during the 2008 global financial
crisis). While governments can do little to prevent depreciations when
necessary, a more flexible exchange rate system may help soften the blow.
Q.3 Analyze post-covid
scenario in Pakistan. How far has the pandemic of COVID-19 impacted Pakistan?
What steps have been taken by the government to keep the economy of the country
on track?
The arrival of the year 2020 has plunged the whole
planet into a fight against a pandemic, and the outcome of this conflict is
anyone's guess. Hundreds of thousands of people have died, and millions more
have been infected, making no nation immune. The world is beginning to divide
itself between pre-COVID-19 and post-COVID-19 eras, just as it did with the
World Wars. Even though it was becoming obvious by the second half of 2019 that
the global economy was entering a recession, the situation was predicted to
improve in 2020, driven by the big developing nations, and a return to
potential global growth was anticipated by 2021. With the disastrous impacts of
Covid-19, however, all bets are off and predictions for 2020 are being revised
lower.
The Covid-19 virus is likely to spread to Pakistan
and other emerging nations via three different routes. Firstly, the steps
adopted to halt the virus's spread will have an impact on total demand. An
economic downturn is already occurring, and it will become worse as a result of
the predicted increase in unemployment (from 12.3 million to 18.53 million
layoffs) that would occur following a lockdown. As a result of losing their
jobs, these families will have less discretionary money, which will have a
ripple effect on consumer spending. Also, depending on how far the virus
spreads and what precautions are done to stop it, remittances might drop by as
much as half. These reductions in discretionary income are predicted to have a
chilling effect on aggregate demand, leading to a drop in private consumer
spending of 4–8 percent. This would have far-reaching effects on the economy
and the way of life of the country's populace.
While social and economic upheavals pose a challenge
to the status quo, they also provide promising new possibilities. As a result,
businesses across many industries are adjusting their offerings, internal
operations, and business models to meet consumer demands. Market restrictions,
pricing wars, lock downs, and shutdowns are predicted to have a significant
impact on FDI in the physical tourism, entertainment, retail, luxury goods,
aviation, real estate, coal, oil & gas, and automotive industries. Food
processing, consumer products, logistics, entertainment and communications,
financial services, e-commerce, educational technology, healthcare information
technology, textiles, and travel and tourism all provide prospects for
expansion. Because of the negative impact that the COVID-19 pandemic has had on
investment and commerce, Pakistan has to respond with a new investment policy.
The following 10-point agenda might serve as a preliminary plan response for
luring investment into Pakistan in the aftermath of the disruptions produced by
Covid-19 and the new possibilities they bring.
Nearly 270,000 instances of the coronavirus have
been reported in Pakistan, along with approximately 5,700 fatalities. During an
interview with a local station a week ago, President Arif Alvi congratulated
the country on their "success" over COVID-19. Alvi said that the
government was able to protect the poor from the economic fallout of the
epidemic. The confirmed number of COVID-19 patients in Pakistan was 259,998 at
the time of Alvi's commendation, and 2,085 additional cases were documented
over the past 24 hours.
The administration of Prime Minister Imran Khan
attributes the decrease in the daily number of new coronavirus infections to
the "smart lockdown" policy used in the month of July. However,
experts believe that inaccurate reporting and limited testing may be behind the
current increase. The economy of Pakistan has been severely impacted by the
outbreak. Former head of the Karachi Stock Exchange Zafar Moti warned that
"Pakistan's economy is declining, unemployment is growing, and several
industries are in trouble" (KSE). Moti told DW that the long-term effects
of the epidemic worry him more than the short-term effects on Pakistan's
financial sector.
Most of Pakistan's exports are of textiles. Since
the COVID-19 problem began, these shipments have decreased, and in certain
cases, orders have been cancelled entirely. After the outbreak, Moti does not
think demand would rise again. "Because of this, foreign reserves will
decrease, and the value of the currency will fall. Long-term, the effects on
the financial markets would be bad as well, "His words. GDP growth in
Pakistan was at 5.8% when Khan came to power in 2018, but it has since dropped
to roughly 0.98% and is expected to fall further. Revenues have dropped precipitously
over the previous two years, contributing to a budgetary deficit of about 10%.
A financial aid initiative by Khan
Before the coronavirus epidemic, the public health
system in Pakistan was already strained to its limits. According to UNDP data,
there is about one physician for every 963 residents and one hospital bed for
every 1,608. To make matters worse, Pakistan is short 200,000 physicians and
1.4 million nurses.
Pakistan requested a six billion dollar rescue
package from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in early 2019 as the country
faced a financial crisis. When the epidemic hit, the economy had just begun to
recover from the previous crisis. An estimated 2.45 million more people are
going hungry as a direct result of the epidemic. 145 million out of Pakistan's
total population of 190 million are in need of urgent assistance since they are
among the country's one-third poor population. In an effort to aid the most
vulnerable members of society in the aftermath of the epidemic, Prime Minister
Khan on April 1 announced the Ehsaas Emergency Cash financial assistance
programme.
About 12 million households received monthly
payments of 12,000 rupees ($0.86 billion, €0.74 billion), for a total
distribution of 144 billion rupees ($0.86 billion, €0.74 billion). Business
columnist Hamza Farooq Habib, however, argues that this is not a viable
long-term option. From the start, in his opinion, the administration has been
playing down the issue, and he does not believe the president's promises to
help the poor. Habib told DW that the true number of coronavirus infections was
unknown. Although government figures claim that just 14,000 individuals are
sick, a recent assessment by the National Institute of Health (NIH) found that
the actual number of ill persons in Islamabad was closer to 300,000.
Khurram Schehzad, an investment banker and risk
analyst, predicts a $15 billion drop in Pakistan's GDP as a direct effect of
the epidemic. He also expects GDP to fall by 10% in the last quarter of the
2020 fiscal year. In an interview with DW, Schehzad warned that a
"complete or semi-lockdown" may lead to "no real GDP growth for
or over 2% negative growth in FY-20," which would continue into the first
quarter of the next fiscal year.
In a recent study, the research firm Gallup, located
in Islamabad, forecasted that Pakistan's jobless rate will rise to a staggering
28 percent. By the end of the next fiscal year, it is expected that the
national unemployment rate would have risen to 6.65 million from 5.80 million.
According to Schehzad, a lengthy lockdown would result in a 30% layoff in the
official sector and cost the private sector 189 billion rupees. The federal
government of Pakistan introduced a 1.2 trillion rupee economic recovery plan
in June. The governments of the provinces are also now working on their own
budgetary plans.
Islamabad also announced 200 billion rupees in tax
rebates and 200 billion rupees in postponed interest payments to companies. To
alleviate pressure from the federal government and companies experiencing cash
flow concerns, the State Bank of Pakistan reduced interest rates for its
borrowers by 225 basis points in the middle of June.
Experts warn that the government of Pakistan may
need future support from not just the IMF and the World Bank, but also from critical
allies like China and Saudi Arabia due to its limited financial ability to
absorb the consequences of the epidemic. Since Pakistan's economy had already
slowed significantly due to a twin-deficit problem in 2018, the COVID-19
outbreak has been a major setback. Prime Minister Imran Khan's administration
responded to the pandemic's effects by implementing a huge stimulus package,
petitioning for international debt relief, and suspending the IMF programme.
The economy has shown signs of improvement over the last several weeks, and the
government will soon resume an IMF programme that had been put on hold.
Pakistan is trying to recover from the devastating economic repercussions of
the epidemic by redefining its bilateral relationship with the United States
under the new Biden administration. On April 6, USIP presented a conversation
that evaluated the COVID-19 pandemic's economic effect on Pakistan's economy,
delved into the forecast for changes, and examined how foreign investors,
particularly U.S. corporations, saw Pakistan's economy and investment
prospects.
Q.4 Evaluate Press-and-Government relationship
in the era of contemporary government of such exercises.
This section of
the research examines the conceptual frameworks that have been developed to describe
the interplay between the press and officialdom, as well as the role of
political rhetoric and news management. As governments have increasingly used
propaganda to alter the public for various reasons since World War One, the
connection between the media and government has gained academic study. Scholars
have paid more attention to the media-government interaction and its
implications for public opinion since the growth of ideological movements in
Europe and the Second World War, as well as the rise of alternative media such
as radio and television (Cobb and Elder 1971: 894). When it comes to political
matters, "the world that we have to deal with is out of reach, out of
sight, out of mind," as Lipmann (1922: 29) puts it. Most of the time, in
reality, we are confronted with a world in which we have no personal expertise.
Consequently, the media facilitate our access to a reality formed by certain
news frames chosen for a variety of purposes and exhibiting a range of biases
(McQuail 2005: 36). Since there is usually no way for the people to verify news
on their own, they must rely on the media as their only source of information
(Van Gorp 2005: 484).
The media does
not function as a really impartial actor at the present time. Its two-way
interaction with governments unquestionably affects how news is handled and
what the public learns. Different theories and models have been created by
scholars of mass communication to explain this dynamic interaction and its
effects on the news the public receives. Scholars of communication have mostly
turned to the "hegemony" idea, "propaganda model,"
"indexing method," and "cascade model" to describe the
interaction between the state and the news media. Gramsci's concept of "hegemony"
highlights the way in which influential groups shape the economic, cultural,
judicial, and political landscapes of a society. Some people argue that the
media is a crucial part of the state's arsenal for creating hegemony.
"culture institutions like the media are part of the process by which a
world-view consistent with the present structure of power in society is
reproduced," Hallin (1994: 23) summed up this viewpoint. In this view, the
media does not only portray preexisting phenomena; rather, it creates what we
accept as normal, with one set of interests always coming out on top (Deetz
1994).
Any claim that
seems like it is reporting the facts might really be incorporating unquestioned
assumptions from the ruling ideology. But hegemony theorists disagree, arguing
that "government officials limit the information accessible to the public
within such tight ideological constraints that democratic discussion and impact
are all but impossible" (Hall,1982) (Entman 2004: 4). Though they
acknowledge that elite disagreement is possible, it is not common. The media
has a (not necessarily unavoidable) general propensity toward harmony and
consistency in reporting by focusing on the agreement and harmony of the
dominant group (Entman 2003: 415). On the other hand, hegemony is an intangible
idea that cannot be verified in any one method.
As a political
economics explanation for the interaction between the media and the state,
Herman and Chomsky's "propaganda model" from their book
"Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media" in
1988 is a good starting point. Though the propaganda model does not make any
overt allusions to hegemony, it does provide a testable theory that
incorporates key ingredients for maintaining governments' hegemonic authority
over the system via media. This model allows government and other elite groups
to dominate public discourse and reproduce existing structures of power by
means of controlling the news and marginalising dissent through a combination
of ownership (profit-oriented media giants), advertising (main income), heavy
reliance on official sources for information (beat system, PR operations of
government, use of expert), flak (negative responses to a media statement or
programme), and ideology (Herman and Chomsky 1988). While elite disagreement
plays a crucial role in the "indexing strategy" (Bennett 1990; Entman
1991).
When there is
agreement amongst elites, the indexing method states, media coverage will back
and promote government policies. The media's function as simply transmitters of
propaganda is limited, however, when there is no agreement among the elites and
political divide (Bennett 1990: 103). That is, "the variety of media
opinion at a period of dispute in the government will only represent the
breadth of that conflict and not, at least in the mainstream media"
(Robertson 2004: 458). As a result, it is unlikely that the media will play a
significant role in providing impartial input under this strategy. Entman
(2003, 2004) argued that the hegemony theory, the propaganda model, and the
indexing technique all have flaws that must be remedied in order to fully grasp
the connection between the state and the media.
Due to their
pre-Cold War period foundations, these models can not easily adapt to modern
developments in media, politics, or globalisation. Disparities between
society's elites have been the norm in recent decades. By this measure, elites
in government and elsewhere have far less leeway than the hegemonic view
indicates when it comes to shaping and influencing popular opinion (Patrick and
Thrall 2007: 95). Despite the fact that indexing theory acknowledges the
disagreement of elites, it is confined to explain the circumstances under which
political leaders stray from certain lines and under which they do not, the
role of the public and journalists, news text, and their relationships to one
another (Entman 2003: 416-417). The next part will discuss the cascade model
proposed by Entman (2003, 2004) to overcome the shortcomings of these
techniques, along with the context necessary to grasp the model.
Structured
and Continuum Model
Bateson's
(1972: 10) definition of this metaphor as "principles of organisation
which regulate happenings" is the conceptual genesis of the framing
theory. In the time that followed, a plethora of frames and framing definitions
emerged, each with its own set of distinguishing characteristics. One
definition is that it is "permanent patterns of cognition, interpretation,
and presentation, of selection, emphasis, and exclusion, by which symbol
handlers habitually structure speech, whether verbal or visual" (Gitlin,
1979: 12). In line with Gamson's (1989: 157) definition of frame as a
"central organising principle or notion for making sense of relevant
occurrences and proposing what is at stake," this definition captures the
essence of the term. If we interpret this description in terms of a news frame,
it suggests that news frames aid readers in making sense of news articles. This
framing, as suggested by Gamson (1989: 157), is an inherent aspect of reporting
the news.
In other words,
journalists must choose some terms over others when organising news, and this
choice alters reality and provides meaning to the news itself, so the news does
not just reflect reality as it currently is. In fact, examining how news is
framed is essential to comprehending framing's function in the cascade model.
In Entman's (1993: 52) definition, "framing is to select some aspects of a
perceived reality and make them more salient in a communication text, in such a
way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral
evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation for the item described," the
processes of selecting and making something more prominent in the text are
central.
The way you
phrase an issue promotes certain views, interpretation, appraisal, and solution
that help one side while hiding the other sides, making framing a vital tool
for government officials and the media to exert political influence over one
other and over the public (Entman 1993: 52-54). Reese, Gandy, and Grant (2001:
23) explain how the framing process impacts public perception by emphasising
certain words, phrases, metaphors, images, sources, and contexts. The media
leak of Imral's meeting minutes and the ensuing discussion among lawmakers is a
prime illustration of the significance of framing. To sway public opinion one
way, the Justice and Development Party (AKP) has been emphasising the identity
of the leaker of this document, while the opposition parties have been
emphasising the papers' contents to sway public opinion another way.
Model of
Cascade
The
shortcomings of the indexing model are remedied by the Cascade Model, which
provides a more comprehensive and dynamic depiction of the interplay between
the many forces at play (the government, elites, media and public opinion). The
key idea is that in particular contexts, political players, the media, and the
public all affect and interact with one another (Kriesi 2004: 45-46). This
exemplifies the diversity and stratification that occur from the interplay of
several influences (Entman 2004: 50). Those in positions of power, like
presidents and prime ministers, have the greatest leeway to create their own
events and choose for themselves whatever ideas to bring to the forefront of
people's minds. Almost certainly, the news will cover it (Keisen 2004: 46).
This complex web of interaction among elites, media, media frames, and the
public is not easily controlled or dominated by any one of the individuals
involved (Patrick and Thrall 2007: 96). These days, both voters and
representatives get their impressions of politics from the media (frames), and
both groups have come to depend heavily on this information. To be more
specific, "ambiguous events give additional opportunity for parties
outside the government, like the media, to impact framing" (Entman 2004:
50).
As a result,
the system's many forces exert varying degrees of effort toward the goal of
optimising their command over unfolding drama. The issue now is at what point
the favoured frame of governments trickles down to dominate thought and
communication at every level. Four factors—"cultural congruence,"
"power," "strategy," and "motivation"—interact to
determine the outcome (Entman 2003: 37). Although elite power and strategy are
influential, they function independently from the internal forces of motivation
and cultural congruence. The public and the media are more inclined to accept
and promote an event if it fits within the cultural schemas of the culture in
question. For certain situations, as 9/11 in the U.S. (Entman 2003) or the
terrorist attack against civil individuals in the Kumrular street, the
government, public, and the media are so completely linked in terms of cultural
congruence that the media organisations are simply instrumentalized by the
political players. To put it another way, the government's framing preferences
are more likely to be adopted by the media when an event fits into preexisting
cultural schemas (Entman 2003: 37). However, when circumstances are uncertain,
the media has more freedom. It is considerably harder for governments to
regulate the media when there are no established habitual patterns for certain
events, as the Ergenekon trial in Turkey. The success of political actors in
spreading their own frames depends on a number of factors, including cultural
compatibility, strategy, power, and motive. The government attempts to get its
frameworks into the hands of the media through catering to journalists'
autonomy, impartiality, and other normative ideals (Entman 2003: 421).
Forces from
outside, power and strategy may be effective tools. In times of war, for
instance, authorities are given more say over day-to-day operations because of
the higher stakes involved. Also, governments' authority is proportional to the
degree to which their policies are supported by the public and implemented
efficiently. The media staff's autonomy comes from their ability to organise
and communicate the news in a certain way, which includes asking questions and
choosing language at will. Finally, tactics are established mostly by political
players and include word choice, information dissemination and withholding, and
timing (Entman 2003: 422). The administration's objective is, therefore, to get
media coverage that is biassed in favour of its own interpretation of the
situation. For governments to successfully manage the news and win over public
opinion, they must use power, strategy, and motives. Next, we will look at how
political players use the news and manipulate the language of politics to define
matters in their favour.
Managing the
News and Political Discourse
In order to
garner public attention and support, governments often work to increase
coverage of issues from the perspective they find most favourable (Kriesi 2004:
46). Since governments can hardly expect to just instrumentalize the media,
they must make some concerted efforts to influence the process. Instead of
concentrating only on the "substantive component of the messages delivered
by officials," the media often highlights "the social and personal
dimensions of the political battle and the strategic intents of the political
players" in an effort to prove its impartiality (McQuail 2005: 192). In
order to exert their influence, media outlets pick and frame news stories
(gatekeeping). The media, in this sense, not only informs, but also has the
potential to play an independent role in the political process.
One way to
think about the connection between the media and government in this context is
as a power struggle in which each party attempts to shape the narrative by
inserting its own frameworks and priorities (McCombs 2004: 12). Instead of
hoping their words would be instrumentalized by the media, governments are
actively seeking to use communication tactics to spread their views. In light
of this debate, we might define "news management" as the intentional
efforts of the government to shape the content and tone of the media for its
own political gain (Kohut 2007: 191). To influence public opinion in favour of
the government's purpose, political players are seen as responsible for all
aspects of the information cycle. Governments use a variety of methods towards
this end.
National
context, problem context, personal context, and the use of news management
intelligently recognising these aspects at work are crucial to the
effectiveness of these techniques (Entman 2007: 170). Governments may
efficiently control the news using a variety of techniques at their disposal.
One of them is influencing public opinion via the dissemination of information,
particularly in regards to matters of war and international terrorism. Several
studies have shown the media's significant dependence on official sources while
reporting on international topics (Herman and Chomsky, 1988; Reese, 2004). As a
result of the convention of asserting neutrality by citing official sources and
the ease with which news outlets may get this material, news outlets tend to
place a disproportionate amount of weight on official sources in cases of
international war.
Because of
this, authoritative official sources may always twist the facts to fit their
own agendas. This authority is most pronounced in wartime settings, as
governments are able to exert control over "the realities on the
ground" (Robertson 2004: 35). "Embedded journalism" exemplifies
the government's ability to censor news coverage throughout the conflict.
Unintentional bias and pro-government one-sided coverage are the natural
outcomes of using official sources and embedding journalists in the community
(Hallin 1988: 22). Reese (2004) eloquently explains how embedded journalism
compromises reporters' independence by providing them with less safety, more
leadership from the military, less balance in their reporting, and more heroism
in their framing of events.
Certainly, every
nation has its own distinct characteristics. Pluralism, independence, and
access are crucial tools for every nation to have an educated public for both
foreign policy and political communication (Norris 2004). Most academics agree
that the public is not well informed during war and international crises, but
the model provides reason for optimism. It is not enough, according to Entman
(2004: 17), for the media to offer information in poorly absorbed and dispersed
chunks. What people really need, however, is an alternative interpretation that
is built out of culturally resonant words and pictures, and that becomes large
enough to earn widespread acceptance as a reasonable contrast to the
government's. The people has a higher opportunity of forming their own ideas if
the media has presented a counter framing.
Q.5 How Pakistani media have played its role
in pleading case of Indian Occupied Kashmir on international forum? Support
your answer with logical arguments.
The last several months in
Indian-controlled Kashmir have been racked by violent demonstrations that have
claimed the lives of tens. Daily World looks at how the media in India and
Pakistan are reporting on the turmoil. On the morning of September 18, four
shooters acting in a commando fashion assaulted a military base in the part of
Kashmir that is governed by India, killing 17 troops. Unfortunately, a
subsequent hospital death claimed the life of a nineteenth serviceman. At a
time when the upheaval in the Muslim-majority area was making headlines throughout
the globe, the terrible incident occurred. Massive anti-government rallies
erupted when government soldiers killed a teenage rebel leader in Indian
Kashmir, and the region has been under a heavy security lockdown ever since.
India's senior leaders
immediately began accusing Pakistan for planning the attack on the army
installation in Uri, which is situated to the west of the state capital
Srinagar. India's Interior Minister Rajnath Singh recently declared Pakistan
"a terrorist state" and urged the international community to isolate
Islamabad as a result. The sentiment was shared by a large number of Indian
Twitter users.
Pakistan swiftly rebuffed the
accusations, arguing that it was premature to assign culpability until a
thorough investigation into the incident had been conducted. Although this did
not prevent mainstream media from both nations from joining the heated
rhetoric, stories such as "Pakistani media's odd conclusions about the Uri
terror assault" and "Uri is a Pathankot-like Indian false flag
operation" were published under such headings.
An unpopular part
Generally speaking, "media
in Pakistan and India are playing a very detrimental role and are essentially
warmongering for their own regimes," as one expert on South Asian affairs
based in Kolkata put it. He said to DW that while the Pakistani media is
"in denial mode," the Indian media is "in finger-pointing
mode," and neither has any proof to back up their accusations.
Blogger Basharat Ali of
Indian-administered Kashmir claims that both India and its archrival Pakistan
have utilised their media to promote official viewpoints on the Kashmir issue.
Since the beginning of the war, "successive administrations in India have
adopted the stance that Pakistan is sponsoring the situation in Kashmir,"
Ali told DW. They consistently misrepresent the truth and provide an other
narrative. "As people see falsehoods being circulated about them, their
wrath grows," he said.
According to Ali, several Indian
publications have correspondents in India-administered Kashmir, but Pakistani
media must rely on news agencies since they do not employ any reporters in the
region. To bring international attention to the situation in Kashmir, Pakistani
media have been reporting on the increasing number of human rights crimes
there. The writer pointed out that this is the stance actually adopted by the
government of Pakistan. One of the key points of contention between the two
nuclear-armed South Asian countries has been Kashmir since since India was
split in 1947. Since the division, they have fought two of their three wars
over control of the land.
According to Baba Umar, an
independent journalist based in Dubai who has been reporting on the turmoil in
Kashmir, many in the Indian-administered part of the territory see the Indian
media as the "public relations machine" of New Delhi. He told DW that
"massive pro-independence protests are occurring on at various sites in
Kashmir," adding, "the media have let themselves become a real
instrument of the state and its military force."
Umar said that the Kashmiri
local media are doing an excellent job reporting the unrest, which has been
going on for almost two months and has killed over 70 people, despite being
assaulted by the government on many occasions. Police "ransack newspaper
offices, seizing hundreds of printed copies," and "mobile phone,
landline, and internet services remain stifled across the area."
Chatterjee had some harsh words for the television news in both nations.
Regional media in both nations, however, seem to be less invested in the
rivalry between New Delhi and Islamabad, in contrast to the national television
media. Chatterjee saw it as a positive indication.
Did you forget to verify your
facts?
A top journalist from a
prominent TV station recently resigned after accusing the network of falsifying
his reporting on the Kashmir war, adding to the long history of controversy
surrounding the Indian media's coverage of the conflict. The journalist said he
was pressured into writing pro-Indian government stories on Kashmir.
"Umar asserted, in
reference to the resignation of the Indian journalist, that "we all know
as journalists what the function of media should be in cooling tempers, but
that is no longer the case when it comes to the coverage of Kashmir by Indian
media."
Journalists in India and
Pakistan are not confirming their facts, according to media experts. They urge
the news media of both countries to do more to downplay the tension.
"Chatterjee emphasised that mainstream media outlets should inform their audiences
about the enormous destruction that may result from a nuclear battle between
India and Pakistan. "Media outlets should be sceptical of official
statements issued by militaries and governments. As opposed to being influenced
by jingoism, public opinion should be based on facts and reality.
Twitter users and leaders from
both nations have publicly placed responsibility for the violence in Kashmir on
the other. That is why you see trending topics in both nuclear-armed countries:
#UnitedAgainstPak and #FrustratedIndia. But not everyone is playing the social
media blame game. As it turns out, 14 of the 18 troops killed in the Uri
assault were trapped in burning tents, the former Chief Minister of Jammu and
Kashmir, Omar Abdullah, has raised issues regarding the tents and huts used at
the military station. If the soldiers had been given fireproof tents, according
to Abdullah, the death toll would have been substantially lower.
Diplomats are also tweeting
about the situation in an effort to ease tensions between the two countries. An
ex-Pakistani ambassador to the United States, Sherry Rehman, expressed her
opposition to a military response to the Uri incident. She was quite clear that
war was not the answer.
Yet, according to Basharat Ali,
bloggers and activists in Kashmir are now unable to use social media due to the
shutdown of mobile phone services in the region, which has lasted for over two
months. "Whatever is going on in the virtual world is the work of
Kashmiris residing in other countries, he said. It has been widely criticised
on social media that the Indian government has restricted internet access in
Kashmir. Human rights activist and Twitter user Khurram Parvez of Kashmir was
recently detained after being barred from attending a meeting of the United
Nations Human Rights Council. Analysts have also claimed that Facebook has been
censoring postings by famous Kashmiri activists discussing the turmoil. "
According to Baba Umar, a young man from Kashmir was recently detained and his
bail was rejected just because he liked a post on Facebook "Indian
authorities and its proxies in Kashmir are sensitive to any criticism of their
actions there. Nonetheless, Twitter users in particular are providing a robust
reaction to statist discourses on Kashmir despite the limitations.
Politically speaking, although
some people in Kashmir are happy to join Pakistan since it is an Islamic
Republic, the vast majority would likely choose independence for Kashmir if
given the chance. The Kashmir Assembly, in accepting India's position that
Kashmir should have the greatest possible autonomy, ratified the Constitution
for Jammu and Kashmir that was created in 1957. New Delhi's political blunders,
however, have left a lasting scar on the Kashmiri psyche, contributing to the growth
of a profound sense of discontent that blends readily with a strong sense of
Muslim identity.
Given this situation, many
Kashmiris first welcomed Pakistan's assistance to "the lads" who
crossed the Line of Control to battle Indian soldiers. While the independence-minded
and secular Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front was mostly sidelined, the
jihadis brought from Pakistan were welcomed by the local Hizbul Mujahideen.
This is no longer the case since tens of thousands of lives were lost for no
gain, a whole generation of young people was destroyed, and nobody knew what
direction to take. Several Hurriyat Conference separatist leaders feel that
radical Islamists with an extreme agenda have taken control of the Kashmir
conflict in order to further an ideology that has nothing to do with their own
conception of the region or the religion.
The liberation struggle and the
right to self-determination as guaranteed by UN resolutions are essential
tenets of the prevailing anti-India narrative in both Srinagar and Pakistan.
However, both the Hurriyat Conference leadership and the non-Hurriyat leader
Shabir Shah have publicly called for a political solution that may, at long
last, depend on a compromise. Most of these politicians see Pakistan less as a
potential new home than as a bargaining chip to use against India. In 2000,
several Kashmiri Hizbul Mujahideen militants offered a ceasefire, which
ultimately failed because the Hizbul leadership in Pakistan's Azad Kashmir was
against it. In April of 2003, there was a public schism among the Hizbul.
Clearly, both Kashmirs are home to complex games of influence and sway.
In other words, Pakistan's
preferred asymmetrical combat approach in Kashmir, which New Delhi describes as
a "proxy war" reliant on "cross-border terrorism," has not
been entirely successful due to India's surprising resilience. The Kashmiri
people have paid a high price for Pakistan's policy that has kept hundreds of
thousands of Indian soldiers in the region for over a decade. Many of them are
now on the fence, torn between their desire to maintain the status quo and
their realisation that the old method is no longer effective. Voter turnout was
low in the urban centres of the Srinagar Valley last autumn, but the overall
number of Kashmiris willing to participate in the political process despite
threats or calls for boycott increased.
There is also the possibility of
taking a global view of the situation in Kashmir. Every side in the war is
really sad about this. For many years, the conflict in Kashmir was mostly
ignored internationally since it was thought to be localised in the Himalayas
and unlikely to escalate into a full-scale war between Pakistan and India.
Their diplomatic approaches could hardly have been more different. India would
prefer that the world community not bring up the issue of Kashmir at all.
Pakistan took the opposite stance, and made repeated attempts to have the world
community intervene. There are a number of reasons why India was able to win
this diplomatic battle. To begin, the Kashmiri separatist movement never had a
strong figurehead who could effectively represent their case in the world press
and at international conferences (partly because Pakistan did its best to
prevent the emergence of any strong and united leadership).
Second, many nations agreed with
India's argument that nations should have the right to decide their own fate.
Despite more than fifty years of UN resolutions calling for a referendum in
Kashmir, few were ready to assess its merits. They were more inclined to agree
with India's stance that self-determination was appropriate in the face of
colonial control, but not against sovereign nation states, especially in
multicultural nations. China, because of Tibet and Xinjiang; Russia, because of
Chechnya; etc... were among the powers that were directly affected. To prevent
the risk that self-determination might usher in an age of conflict far beyond
Kashmir, other nations just backed the idea of the status quo. Although many in
Kashmir and other Muslim nations have determined that the exception is simply
accepted since it favours a Christian breakaway over Muslim Indonesia, East
Timor was meant to be the exception rather than the norm for all of them.
Concerned eyes across the world
have been watching as South Asia openly nukes itself. To put it another way, it
went against the worldwide trend favouring the expansion of the
Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. As a result, it
shed new insight on the troubled past of Indo-Pakistani ties and the Kashmir
conflict's relatively mild severity. Capabilities for command and control were
evaluated, as were nuclear concepts that were never quite official. Pakistan
was thought to be prepared to depend, in an absolute emergency, on a first
strike in the event of a conventional assault on its critical interests,
whereas India would only consider a second strike. Putting aside the lofty
language of deterrence, how were the practical criteria for nuclear use to be
established?
Soon, Kashmir was identified as
a potential nuclear flash point, with some even calling it "the most
hazardous region in the world," since even a localised fight has the
potential to escalate into a wider war, with the conventional option edging
closer and closer to nuclear weapons. Indian and Pakistani officials were found
to be inconsistent, with some saying a nuclear battle was unimaginable while
others assured the public that their military forces were prepared for any
threat.
The already complicated
situation in Kashmir was further complicated after 9/11 when Pakistan supported
the U.S.-led Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. The BJP administration
imposed its realpolitik standards on India overnight. But New Delhi cautioned
Washington that it would not tolerate double standards when it came to fighting
terrorism; if the jihadis were to be defeated in Afghanistan, they would also
need to be eradicated in Kashmir. It may be argued that Indian diplomacy was
making an effort to divert attention away from the Kashmir question itself and
towards the problem of terrorism there. In response, Islamabad said that India
was just seeking to further its own interests by falsely designating as
terrorist what was really "a genuine Kashmiri independence fight."
Even while the current situation
is more dangerous than ever, the old paradigm still seems to hold: the
international community and the United States in particular are not truly
concerned with Kashmir per se or with the destiny of the Kashmiris. They worry
about the possibility of conflict, whether conventional or nuclear. The pursuit
of Al Qaeda is now the top priority for the U.S. government in the area, and
they require General Musharraf's assistance to be successful. From a global
viewpoint, India and Pakistan's dispute over Kashmir is nothing more than a
hotspot; any steps toward discussion would be welcomed, regardless of the
outcome. Both India and Pakistan, as well as the separatists in Kashmir, are
counting on the international community, and the United States in particular,
to increase their pressure on the other side.
However, Kashmir looks as a
difficulty region in a sensitive location for the world community, which has to
be quieted down somehow if not entirely handled. The three Asian nuclear
superpowers—China, India, and Pakistan—are all separated by this disputed area.
It is also a dramatic point of disagreement between two states that the United
States sees as crucial. In a nutshell, it impacts a range of American strategic
scenarios that see India as the dominant regional power, a source of stability
on Asia's southern flank and the northern edge of the Indian Ocean, and,
ultimately, a potential foil to a growing, "congaged" China. As a
result, it is not surprising that the United States government has focused so
much emphasis on the area since 1998. It would not be surprising if it
considers South Asia to be "a area where (its) most essential interests
are at risk" (Assistant Secretary of State Christina Rocca, 3/26/03).
There must be some kind of appeasement in Kashmir if India is to protect its
interests there.