A journalist, accused of anti-State acts, is put through the grind
EVERYONE was suddenly talking in whispers. Any mention of the low-pro-file journalist Humayun Fur and cabinet members, officials of the civil services, the army and intelligence agencies would lower their voices, look around and mumble a few words about "what a serious affair it was". Others would drop a few words like "enemy country", "state secrets" and "treason". Till today, no one knows what really happened—why was a journalist arrested, kept in jail and finally pardoned?
As bureau chief of Peshawar's Mashraq, Fur was one of the few Pakistani journalists who frequented the homes of Indian diplomats and visited the Indian high commission. On June 28, when he was returning home with his wife, a car stopped them and whisked him away. For three days, his family and Islamabad's journalist community combed the twin cities but in vain. Even interior minister Shujjat Hussain confessed he knew nothing. Finally, information minister Mushahid Hussain spoke to the ISI chief and was told that they had picked up Fur for being involved in anti-state activities.
Journalists held demonstrations for Fur's release and several foreign-based organisations, including Amnesty International, took up the case but he wasn't released.The army announced that Fur would be court-martialled and that the trial was going to be held in-camera. "The case is too sensitive to be held in public," the army said.
Fur was also accused of working for Pakistan's Intelligence Bureau for three years. This in itself is nothing new. Several journalists are on the payroll of intelligence agencies and there have always been appeals from independent journalists that the state should refrain from corrupting the media. Later, he was handed out a five-year term and kept in fetters in jail. All medical help to an ailing Fur was stopped till he collapsed in jail and was shifted to hospital by his family—he was still in chains.
Afraid of what the reaction would be if Fur died in custody, Shujjat got his fetters off while the army said his appeal would be considered. Army chief Jehangir Kara-mat pardoned Fur, who may be a free man today but still very ill. The manner of Fur's arrest, his trial and his sudden release has made a mockery of a democratic government. The journalist community had made it clear that if Fur was proved a traitor, he should be punished.
But the episode left many questions unanswered. With courts functioning in the country, he should not have been whisked away but arrested in a more civilised manner. The in-camera trial gives Fur the benefit of doubt specially when he did not have his own lawyer. Was Fur really guilty?—he swears his innocence. One theory is that Fur was caught in a spy versus spy game between the IB and the ISI. No one will ever know, but Fur's case has sent shock waves among journalists.
For many on the India beat, trips to New Delhi and visiting the Indian high commission are more exciting than covering Afghanistan. India has been on the front pages ever since the Nawaz Sharif government took over with a renewed pledge to improve bilateral ties. But Fur's case has frightened many. Remarked one journalist missing from a reception at the Indian high commission: "Do you want me to be another Fur?"
No one wanted to know exactly what had been transferred to the 'enemy', but many asked the establishment why it was leaving its secrets unguarded for a journalist to pick up. More important, who else was involved, and if so, why were other names not made public? Why should it only be a journalist to end up with a bad name? What about his accomplices? Asked whether Fur's case was a signal for other journalists to fall in line, specially those covering India, Karamat quipped: "Certainly not. Fur's is a particular case which cannot be publicised at the moment".
It is an open question whether Fur's deteriorating health had anything to do with his pardon. Certainly no one wanted a dead journalist on their hands. Specially when Fur was in good health when he was arrested. On the eve of the third round of foreign secretary-level talks in New Delhi, two officials at the Indian high commission were declared persona non grata and charged with being in league with Fur. New Delhi had reciprocated the gesture.
Pakistan's press corps had second thoughts about Indian high commissioner Satish Chandra, who with his new team in Islamabad chairs over the most open house Islamabad has ever seen. The doves overshadow the hawks, but if Chandra's men are involved in luring Pakistani journalists, then how does New Delhi expect people-to-people contact that the two prime ministers continually harp on? The media is an important medium in this process. After a long time, Pakistani journalists and the people were relaxed about going into the high commission without being mistaken for spies.The Fur episode has put the goodwill in jeopardy.