The Cyril expose materialised when the country’s military is engaged in a full scale sub conventional war against terror outfits while simultaneously facing a near war situation on the eastern front
A very renowned journalist and a popular talk show guest recently aired his views on the Cyril Almida article that has virtually resulted in a severe crisis for the ruling party. He opined that while the disclosure could be termed a breach of confidentiality, calling it a violation of national security is very farfetched. In support of his argument he recalled several cases where confidential meetings between the security establishment and government functionaries were leaked out to the media and these were not considered as breaches of national security. He further observed that in all these instances the leaks had projected the civil administration in bad light, hence national security was not considered in jeopardy, surmising that anything remotely targeting the military is generally regarded as high treason. Perhaps the gentleman failed to realise that it was just not the content but the timing of the so-called revelation that elevated it from a simple mischief to a threat to national security. Consider a sentry discovered sleeping at his post: during peace time; he might get away with a simple warning or at worst a dismissal. The same crime during war could easily result in his summary trail and execution.
The Cyril expose materialised when the country’s military is engaged in a full scale sub conventional war against terror outfits while simultaneously facing a near war situation on the eastern front where cross LOC firing is on the increase. Post Uri, India is trying to build a case projecting Pakistan as the sponsor of the Uri raid, a charge which the latter has vociferously denied. Giving the charge a further spin, India maintains that the Pakistan military rather than the civilian leadership is responsible for planning and facilitating the attackers. Several US legislatures, military commanders and academics repeat a similar mantra. Their primary objective is to weaken the Pakistani military which they consider as the major hurdle in implementation of their policies — policies that will promote their interests in the country, especially in the nuclear field. This line of reasoning is vehemently rejected by both the civilian and military leadership of Pakistan and the Cyril report gave a boost to the Indian claim that was going nowhere of a rogue army that must be cut to size.
Given the serious nature of the incident, Cyril Almeida can be legally forced to reveal his source and even jailed if he refuses
The contents of the Cyril story can hardly be termed as a revelation. Drawing room gossip mongers, especially from the chattering middle-class, do express their dismay at the apparent freedom of movement by the leaders of proscribed parties despite some of them being under proper or protective custody of the government. Some blame the civilian leadership at the helm of affairs, others the military while many consider both are responsible to various degrees. If the report had been published pre-Uri, it would still have made waves but very likely would not have turned into a tsunami. The very respectable and seasoned journalist in question went on to reiterate the position of the government that the entire Cyril report is fabricated, therefore, in his judgment, it merits no further action and should be summarily dismissed. Considering that Cyril has categorically stated in his column that his sources were the civilian state functionaries present in the fateful meeting, the only logical conclusion one can then draw is that it was a deliberate attempt by some within the civil administration to malign the Pakistan army by spreading false news. It would amount to treachery’ even in normal circumstances and in the prevailing environment, that must count as a serious breach of national security. Protection of source is a fundamental right of a journalist, especially an investigative reporter, but as the gentleman during the interview’ admitted that where the national security is considered at risk, this right is waived off. The infamous Palme affair in USA in 2003 during the Bush administration was mentioned by him. A lady reporter had bared the name of a CIA agent in her column based on a leak by an insider. She initially refused to reveal her source, was taken to court by the administration and on her continual refusal was jailed. Eventually she did comply and Lewis Libby was identified as the leaker. He was subsequently imprisoned but was granted a presidential pardon soon afterward. If mere disclosure of Valliere Palme, a run of the mill CIA agent, is considered a threat to national security, deliberately maligning the nation’s military by planting fabricated tales that give ammunition to the enemies of the state cannot be dismissed lightly. It is a serious crime that warrants a proper investigation to reveal the actual perpetrators, not mere carrier pigeons, who could be guilty of high treason. Given the serious nature of the incident, Cyril Almeida can be legally forced to reveal his source and even jailed if he refuses. The gentleman had vowed that not only he would himself stand up for Cyril if he is jailed for refusing to cooperate, he would instigate his comrade in arms to join his protest— he should be prepared to face the consequences.
