From a journalistic perspective it is clear that there are many angles to a story. It is easy to simplify a news story and often reporters working to deadlines are happy to build upon stereotypes. Of course there is whole lot more to Pakistan then the current security situation. I can attest to the list of voices from Pakistanis here that there is much more to the country then being a central battle ground where the War on Terror is being fought.

However the fact remains that what separates the Pakistan story right now from other stories is this very conflict situation. Any other story which comes out of the country will be viewed by outsiders from this narrow lens. In deed there are exceptions. However just look at the recent events in China with Tibet and how the western media has failed to adequately present the Chinese perspective and side of the argument, which incidentally is a powerful one. It is remarkable how Tibet has been splashed on the front pages when there are far worse atrocities in places such as Sudan, Somalia. Of course those countries are not rising economic superpowers on a par to challenging the centuries old global status quo.

I bring this up to show how the media leads people in a certain direction and public opinion just seems to follow. And yes I will say that in recent years the strong criticism the Pakistani media has hurled at the Musharraf regime has made this writer very proud. The media in Pakistan may not be as secure and free as in the States and Europe; however it is bolder and more open in its criticism of its leaders. Which brings up another interesting topic over how having served under a repressive dictatorship the institutions of this country have continued to defy common stereotypes labeled on such states.

Pakistan is not the same that it was 10 years ago. The country is improving and its totally different from what is shown in the media. I think Pakistan along with Turkey are the two most moderate Muslim countries in the world.
As for some of the Indians commenting here that Pakistan should join up with India. I would just like to tell them, DREAM ON!
Millions of people didn’t lose their lives for nothing during partition of British India, and we will not allow 800 million Hindus to take over our land. Pakistan’s own population is only 162 million, India’s population is over 1 billion and half of India’s population lives below the poverty line. Do you know what kind of effect that would do to the land of Pakistan? I know it would be India’s dream come true but in reality India is the last country Pakistan would want to join with. I do think that Pakistan should keep on improving relations with India and do more business projects and trade with India, it will benefit both countries. If India and Pakistan were both peaceful neighbors towards one another, both countries would proseper.

Basim,

I being a Pakistani condemn your remarks about someone’s religion.

Mr. Johnny,
If you wish the subcontinent well then you should talk a bit more sensibly. You make Pakistan sound like a total failure whereas India a complete success. Dont believe in stereotypes of “Jihadistan” and “India Shining”. In your “Jihadistan” the people just recently voted for extremely progressive and secular parties and totally sidelined the mullahs and the military. In your “India Shining” 80,000 farmers committed suicide because of debt and poverty. And what about number of people living under the poverty line? That number is going to actually double because of inflation since $1 is not enough to feed anymore and has to be increased to $2. So let’s not get a big head over the success of 10% of the population while ignoring the plight of 90%. You be happy in your home and work for its good, and let us be happy in our home and work on ours. Both countries have gigantic problems to tackle.

For one, Pakistan does not have a population of 150 million but over 169 million (http://www.prb.org/Countries/pakistan.a spx).

More than “the world prefers its stereotypes”, the so-called free world (west) faces two threats, one from Islamic extremists and the other from a rising China. So it is only natural that the “world” media portrays these two in a negative light.

India is mostly projected as “secular” because the west does not feel a threat from it and wants to pit it against a China that will be increasingly dominant in the next few decades. These are some facts about India that might make you rethink your “secular”:

– In 2002, India butchers over 2000 people (mainly Muslim) in the Indian state of Gujarat. To this day, no one has been brought to justice on this. In fact, India’s Hindus keep bring Mr. Narendra Modi (the Chief Minister at the time of the Gujarat pograms) to power election after election.

– The Golden Temple massacre of 1984 where the Indian army stormed a Sikh Temple killing over 500 civilians (predominantly Sikh). For those of you who do not remember but Indira Gandhi was assassinated by her Sikh bodyguard.

– Over 50,000 civilians have dies in the Kashmir conflict up until now. India does not give sovereignty of the Kashmir people to decide on their fate as mandated by the United Nation is 1948.

Now as for the recent unrest in Pakistan, most Pakistanis consider a failed western policy in Afghanistan to be the main reason for the blow-back in Pakistan as well as the Musharraf policy of heavy-handedly dealing with Pakistani tribals in the border areas.

Mr. Johnny, Thank you very much for your interest in welfare of subcontinent.
Loose Federation or any state of india! Are you nuts?? Have you ever studied the history of these two countries? history of the disputes among these two countries? Every studied the psychy, the mindset of the both sides of borders? no? nada?
Its just not about not the pieces of lands, its about two nation theory sir! Pakistan and India are just same as China and Russia. Being a well wisher of subcontinent, you must pray that the India should realize the right of freedom of people fighting in different states of India for freedom.

Well! Pakistan\’s main problem isn\’t the so called 22 families. It was mention by dr. mehbub many decades ago and now we have nothing to do with these families because fractions and other domestic family crisis has just vaporized the SO CALLED elite club of Pakistan. You could observe the profiles of the newly elected MPs and most of them, yes most of them came from middle class or was the part in middle class in some ways.. Pakistan\’s biggest problem is army rule looping again and again after some years of democracy because Pakistan army is the biggest landlord of Pakistan occupying almost 10% land of Pakistan. Western countries always encourage the army rule in Pakistan like ayub khan was very close to Mr. Kennedy and Yaha was friend of Richard Nixon.. everyone know about the friendship between Zia and Cater, Bush and Mr. Reagan and last the Musharraf and his diaper friend Bush.. People of Pakistan has struggled a lot for democracy but their ambitions were always crushed by the heavy boots of Army and the support provided to the army by the western nations.
Pakistan would fight terrorism in better way by the participation of its people.. If anyone thinks that he could change the image of Pakistan into positive and friendly state by bypassing the democracy, the one should have prepared for thousands of Usamas being produced in the environment of state terrorism and politically numb.

Everything in this article is true. Pakistan has always been portrayed in the media as a failed or dangerous country. In reality, this is totally absurd and false. The recent elections in Pakistan proves my point. They are progressive, they want peace and most of all they mean business.

I’m British and in Pakistan right now. Pakistan is a beautiful country and the VAST majority of people here want democracy, accountability in government, and social harmony. The reason all the chaos has happened here recently is because Pakistan has responsible media organisations that inform the public of what is going on with the powers that be. And the people are politically informed. Which is more than I can say for my country’s media and its citizens.

[...] Source: Reuters [...]

While this doesn’t affect your thesis, I would like to point out that the article about the 22 families you have used as reference is complete nonsense. The famous 22 families were industrialist families who a prominent economist (Dr Mahbub-ul-Haq cited in the linked article) identified as controlling 2/3rds of Pakistan’s industrial assets during the 1960s-70s. They were not necessarily or primarily political clans or feudal dynasties as the linked article claims. The Bhuttos, a feudal not an industrialist clan, were certainly not amongst the 22 families. To see Dr Haq’s own statement, please refer to http://www.mhhdc.org/html/speeches.htm and scroll down to “System is to blame for the 22 wealthy families”