For one month starting 15 January 2006, the Media Foundation and Panos South Asia monitored four daily newspapers from India and Pakistan — Dainik Jagran, Amar Ujala, Daily Ibrat and Nawa-i-Waqt. The first two are Hindi-language papers, while Ibrat is Sindhi and Nawa-i-Waqt is Urdu. This exercise, which followed several themes and issues common to readers on both sides of the border, was undertaken on the assumption that a difference in language implies different constituencies and (at times) differing political attitudes towards the same event. As violence has again erupted in Balochistan over the past year, the province's name has become a byword in Pakistan's media for Indian interference in Pakistani affairs, mirroring a paranoia in India about Pakistani meddling in Kashmir. While such strongly held convictions as were found during the survey reflect an undeniable difference in generally-held opinions on either side of the border, the disparities also raise the question of, to what extent, in the face of such polemic and bombast, this type of media culture will be able to contribute to a progressive, cooperative peace process.
Pakistan perspectives
In a 15 January editorial, 'Indian interference in Balochistan', Nawa-i-Waqt quoted the former provincial governor and current rebel leader, Nawab Akbar Bugti, who declared that although India was not supporting the insurgents, the rebels would accept India's offer of help. This declaration was then editorially condemned and refuted. "There is strong evidence of the Indian support to various sardars in Balochistan," its editors wrote. "There have been reports of money, arms and ammunition being transferred to various sardars through the Indian consulates based in Kandahar and Herat." Accusations such as this parallel the frequent (and often unsubstantiated) allegations in the Indian media, which allege that Pakistani consulates in Kathmandu or Dhaka are either terror-cell hubs or conduits for counterfeit Indian currency, aimed at financing terrorism in India or generally undermining the Indian economy. The editorial went on to remind Akbar Bugti of the debt he owes Pakistan: "Nawab Akbar Bugti and other such sardars are in such high positions only because of Pakistan. Otherwise, in India princely states were abolished soon after 1947, all property of rajas and sardars was confiscated and they were forced to stand in the queue of ration depots." There is a perverse pride expressed here, both in the preservation of feudal structures and in the refusal to consider that those inequities might need to be addressed.
In mid-January, a Pakistani delegation including Foreign Secretary Riaz Mohammad Khan traveled to New Delhi for the Composite Dialogue talks. On 19 January, during the delegation's visit to the eastern neighbour, Nawa-i-Waqt carried the following headlines on its front page, some of which were statements made by the Pakistan foreign ministry spokesperson while in the Indian capital: 'India should stop interfering in Balochistan otherwise peace will be in danger. Balochistan is our internal problem' and 'India has been told to find a permanent and acceptable solution to the Kashmir issue'. Sandwiched between these two was another banner: 'Pakistan involved in explosions in Bangalore and Delhi', a contention that the body of the article subsequently refuted. That these charges and counter-charges were traded while the peace talks were taking place indicates the significant levels of distrust. On the same day, a back-page Nawa-i-Waqt article further highlighted this suspicion and paranoia. "Due to Indian interference in Pakistan's internal affairs," the piece noted, "Pakistan has asked federal ministers, members of parliament and government officers to seek NOC [No Objection Certificates] before accepting any invitation from the Indian High Commission for parties, private dinners from Indian diplomats, or any other invitation that requires traveling to India to participate in any conference or meeting."