Unnecessary venom over unverified accusations
The parliament is making waves without much need to – and running the risk of alienating the ever sceptical media – once again. While the accusations on the sitting education and training minister from one controversial anchor may lack substance, the parliament has responded in a manner that does not befit its locus standi. In passing a resolution on Wednesday demanding television channels remove all anchors that air “unverified” accusations against parliamentarians, it has only served to show its own insecurity 10 days before the termination of its mandate.
The matter could have been resolved in a different manner – when one anchor accused Education and Training Minister Sheikh Waqas Ahmed of holding a “fake degree” and “patronising terrorists” in his home constituency of Jhang. Ahmed, known to have taken a consistent stance since the Musharraf period against local sectarian groups and himself having a background in media, should have known better than to let it affect his ego. Anchorpersons are no angels – and the particular anchor who made the accusations had already been tainted recently by a scandal by appearing partial to a property tycoon against the son of the sitting Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (SC) – but should people not be the better judge?
While one agrees that no one, especially anchors, should refrain from levelling unverified charges against a parliamentarian, parliamentarians must also maintain decorum while raising what may be valid concerns of unqualified defamation. Does it befit a sitting education minister to say that he wanted to “barge into the TV (set) and drag him out”? A simple lawsuit tends to serve as a better reminder that one is serious about contesting an accusation. Moreover, is the parliament not overstepping its terrain when it calls on owners of the media houses concerned to “expel them [such anchors] forthwith besides other due action”? Also, if the condemnation was against one anchor, why was it phrased to cover all channels and anchor persons?
Support for the “besieged” and “agitated” education minister was extended by the Speaker Fehmida Mizra, who said she could go to court, if needed, to “defend the honour of the house”. But is the honour of the house so fickle as to be disgraced by one unverified accusations?
Just before assemblies are set to be dissolved, parliamentarians should have known better than to squabble over sour grapes. This may not be the best time for parliamentarians to spit venom against television anchors and the media. Accusations against members of parliament are nothing new – and should not affect the sitting parliamentarians, who know they were brought in by the vote of the people. Would it not have been better for the minister to present his documents before the Election Commission – and media – and let bygones be bygones?.
