Whats the role of media here ? Are they out if sin? The people we r talking about r the honest journalist and are not taking bribes for making anti state propaganda.
We need to understand the difference between anti state journalisim and true journalisim.
Army represent states. U can highlight issues of individuals but u should not defame an state institution. Isnt it hurting the state?
If musharaf is living on the money of foreign governments then y dont he publish the story with proof identifying specific against an individual rather than blackmailing state?
Brother, I can't defend each and every journalist's editorial line. I had never heard of this Toor fellow before this event. Nor can we say with any confidence that all of these people are all honest, sincere, etc. But that doesn't also mean however, that just because they are accusing the army, that they are all scoundrels by default. We have an established history in this country of army excesses.
They are alleging en masse, censorship, enforced disappearances, and other abuses on press freedom by authorities of all sorts, including the security establishment; if that is true then IMO the question isn't what did the journos do to deserve any of this, it's a simple legal matter, and it's clear cut. Any and all such action is extrajudicial and itself punishable by law. If any officer of the army knowingly participates in or orders any of this (if such a charge is proven against them), they should be relieved of their rank for violating their oaths and the law, and then tried in courts.
On the subject of what's patriotic and not patriotic, what's anti-state and what is allowed, all of this can be subjective... In my opinion, criticism of the army, an accurate or even critical assessment of our history, or an account of the state's excesses is not necessarily anti-state, I can even be patriotic. We recognise this virtue within the intelligentsia of our enemies, why can't we do it for our own? When an Indian journalist or human rights worker alleges human rights abuses in Kashmir, or draconian hindu fanatacism, we see its value. When Israeli historians give a proper account of their history and violations of int'l law, it's accepted. When ours allege any of the same, they're immediately branded anti-state, even if the fact of the matter is beyond assail. And where one discusses those who violate the constitution while holding civil or military office, whether or not we see that as bad, the law literally defines that as treason.
Anyway, I don't want to drone on. This is my personal opinion, please feel free to disagree.