LAHORE - In the shadowy world of
Pakistan, journalists can be reasonably sure of
living until the next morning when their byline
appears. From there on, you don't know who might
take affront to your report, abduct, torture or
even kill you. This is the essence of the tragic
story of Syed Saleem Shahzad, 40-year-old Pakistan
bureau chief of Asia Times Online, whose mutilated
body was found in a canal 150 km away from
Islamabad on May 31.
Shahzad went missing
on the evening of May 29, just two days after the
article "Al-Qaeda
had warned of Pakistani strike" was published.
The article stated that al-Qaeda was engaged in
negotiations with the Pakistan Navy for the
release of naval personnel incarcerated for
alleged links to the terror outfit. The report
said the navy had agreed to free them only on the
completion of their interrogation, a term al-Qaeda
rejected. The
audacious attack on the Mehran
naval base in Karachi on May 22, Shahzad's story
claimed, was an outcome of the breakdown in the
navy-al-Qaeda negotiations, thereby testifying to
the militant-military nexus.
Shahzad's
post-mortem report, prepared by a team of three
doctors, found the journalist died soon after he
was kidnapped. Dr Farrukh Kamal, who headed the
autopsy team, said, "There were at least 17
wounds, including deep gashes... The ribs from the
left and right sides seemed to be hit with violent
force, using a blunt object. The broken ribs
pierced Shahzad's lungs, apparently causing the
death."
The pertinent question to ask is:
who tortured Shahzad, not who killed him? One
school of thought accuses the Pakistan's dreaded
intelligence establishment, the Inter-Services
Intelligence, saying Shahzad had been tortured in
order to extract the source of his article. The
ISI issued a statement denying the allegation. A
second school of thought believes militants could
have bumped off Shahzad to embarrass the ISI. Then
there are those who say Shahzad was the victim of
personal enmity.
The first to fire a salvo
against the ISI was Ali Dayan Hasan of Human
Rights Watch (HRW). On May 30, he said, "We were
informed through reliable interlocutors that he
was detained by the ISI." But what really had the
tongues wagging against the ISI was Hasan's other
disclosure - on October 17, 2010 Shahzad had been
summoned to the Islamabad headquarters of the ISI
by the Information Management Wing of the agency,
which wanted to discuss Shahzad's recent report in
which he claimed that Pakistan had quietly
released the fugitive ameer of Afghan Taliban
Mullah Omar's deputy, Mullah Baradar, for taking
part in Afghan negotiations through the Pakistani
military establishment.
Present at the ISI
headquarters were just two navy officers, who
politely requested Shahzad name the source of his
story or at least write a denial. When he refused,
one of the officials informed Shahzad about a
hit-list obtained from a detained terrorist and
added, "If I find your name on the list, I will
certainly let you know." Interpreting this as a
threat, Shahzad thought it prudent to tell the HRW
representative about the meeting in an e-mail,
dated October 18, 2010. Fueling speculation is
another nugget of information - one official
during the 2010 meeting was Commodore Khalid
Pervaiz, who has recently been appointed the new
commander of the Mehran naval base, a few days
after the May 22 attack.
The ISI has
issued a rare statement about that meeting
following Shahzad's murder, "The reported e-mail
of Mr Saleem Shahzad to Mr Ali Hasan Dayan of HRW
... has no veiled or unveiled threats in it." The
ISI justified summoning Shahzad in these words:
"The reported meeting between the journalist and
ISI officials of the Information Management Wing
was held to discuss a story he had done for Asia
Times Online on 15th October, and the meeting had
nothing sinister about it. It is part of the
Wing's mandate to remain in touch with the
journalist community. The main objective behind
all such interactions is provision of accurate
information on matters of national security. ISI
also makes it a point to notify institutions and
individuals alike of any threat warning received
about them", the statement added.
Seasoned
journalist Najam Sethi, however, provided a new
twist to the raging speculation in his Geo TV
program: "The way Shahzad has been killed seems
more likely to be a handiwork of the agencies."
Sethi felt the abductors were oblivious to
Shahzad's physical vulnerability - he had been
shot at last year, the bullet lodging into the
left side of his ribs, right under his heart. His
abductors might have abducted him to teach him a
lesson, ignorant of his low endurance level to
beating because of the wound sustained last year.
They didn't want to kill him, opined Sethi.
Sethi's scenario is reasonable but his
assumption is wrong, say votaries of another
school. Anyone could have tortured Shahzad, not
necessarily the ISI. Interior Minister Rehman
Malik has said that the murder could be the result
of a personal vendetta. That Shahzad was fired at
last year by a security guard following a scuffle
in the F-6 area of the federal capital, is being
furnished as an evidence to insist that he at
least had one ruthless enemy capable of extreme
violence. Islamabad police have already arrested
the guard, Ishtiaq, in connection with the murder
investigations, and he is being interrogated.
However, Shahzad's close circles say he had
pardoned the guard and withdrawn the case against
him, after which he was released.
A third
school of thought says Shahzad could have been
killed by Islamic militants who have repeatedly
targeted the Pakistan military installations on
the assumption that it betrayed Al-Qaeda leader
Osama bin Laden on May 2, 2011. Proponents say the
militants had correctly estimated that the killing
of Shahzad would be blamed on the ISI, undermining
its credibility further. A defensive ISI is indeed
good news for militant outfits, they say. No,
argue critics, pointing to Shahzad's formidable
connections in the militant world and asking:
haven't in the death of Shahzad the militants lost
a journalist upon whom they relied to report their
views?
Those who suspect agencies'
involvement refer to an anonymous call Shahzad's
wife received on the night of May 29, the day her
husband was abducted, telling her not to worry as
he who would be released the following morning.
Chairman of Human Rights Commission of Pakistan
Zohra Yusuf has also blamed state actors for the
murder, stating: "The timing and manner of
Shahzad's abduction make it abundantly clear that
he was targeted only because of his work as a
journalist. The quick disposal of his body and
burial strengthens [belief] in the involvement of
state actors".
Therefore, the ISI is
surely on the back foot. Whoever is responsible
for Shahzad's barbaric murder, one thing is for
sure - he will not be the last journalist to have
sacrificed his life for uncovering the truth, as
there are many more newsmen in Pakistan who firmly
believe that the "truth" remains superior to the
so-called "national interest".
Amir
Mir is a senior Pakistani journalist and the
author of several books on the subject of militant
Islam and terrorism, the latest being
Talibanisation of Pakistan: From 9/11 to
26/11.
(Copyright 2011 Asia Times Online
(Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please
contact us about sales, syndication and
republishing.)
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
