
Special Report: The triumph of populism 1971-1973
Editors and their policies
By Muhammad Ali Siddiqi

THE reaction to the so-called ‘Dawn leak’, which rocked the country last winter, amused Dawnstaff members. Stung by Cyril Almeida’s scoop of Oct 6, 2016, the establishment thought it could fix the paper by bullying its owners. Little did they realise – in spite of having the services of a plethora of oafish intelligence agencies – that at Dawn things are not decided by the owners, and that news and views published in the paper are the sole prerogative of its editor.
From this point of view, Dawn is perhaps the only paper in Pakistan which has always has a professional editor, and the owners had not grabbed the editor’s slot – except once by force of circumstances – to make a mockery of editorial independence. Despite being a political family, the Haroons, owners of the Dawn media group, leave it to the editor to run the paper once the broad contours of policy are in place.
In my own little cosmos, and as a Dawn man who has cumulatively passed nearly half a century in the paper’s service, I do not recall a single time when the management bypassed the editor and called me directly to give me an assignment.
One reason for this clarity in the owner-editor relationship was the very personality of the man who founded Dawn. As Altaf Husain, the paper’s legendary editor, wrote, M.A. Jinnah “never issued any directive, never said ‘Do this’ or ‘Don’t do that’. In fact, he told me to study a given situation and form my honest and independent opinion on it, and then to write fearlessly what I thought – ‘no matter even if the Quaid-i-Azam is offended thereby’.” This tradition – of the editor and not the owner being the kingpin – has continued till this day, and the galaxy of editors we have had proved themselves worthy of the institution called Dawn.
Husain was a legend in his lifetime. His editorials jolted the government of the day, the ad denial making little difference to Dawn’s policy or to the panache of his editorials. The paper’s support for the Muslim League was categorical, and he harshly criticised non-ML governments. But, like sections of the political leadership, including Fatima Jinnah, he welcomed the military coup and supported the Ayub regime on a broad range of issues.
‘Ideology’ had no place in his scheme of things; his religion was Pakistan. For this reason, in foreign policy matters, he believed a close military alliance with America was in Pakistan’s interest, and despised the Left. However, when the US started pouring military aid into India following the war in the Himalayas, the national anger found an expression in his editorials. He then became a fervent believer in a strategic relationship with China, it being of no consequence to him that Pakistan’s north-eastern neighbour was communist.
In the presidential election, Husain supported Ayub and welcomed his election. But he did on occasion criticise the Ayub regime even when martial law was on. He joined the Ayub cabinet on the field marshal’s persuasion, but resigned after the 1965 war because along with Z.A. Bhutto he was among the hawks who disagreed with Ayub’s policies.
Between Husain’s exit and the assumption of editorship by Ahmad Ali Khan in February 1973, the paper saw four editors come and go, with designations changing under stress. Jamil Ansari was, of course, an excellent journalist and editorial writer, but, unlike his predecessor, his commitment to Ayub’s policies was total. While, unlike other newspapers, the news regarding Ayub‘s memoirs – Friends, not Masters – wasn’t a lead story, it was a page-one three-column affair, with extracts carried inside; the editorial was headlined, ‘The hero’s story of a heroic struggle’.
An indication of his policy was his instructions for us to be ‘cautious’ in writing headlines that could annoy the president even if it concerned Vietnam and reflected adversely on the American military. Ansari was sidelined when for the first – and let’s hope the last – time a Haroon became editor. The motive behind Yusuf Haroon’s assuming the office of Chief Editor was to thwart any government attempt to foist its own editor on the paper.
As a sub, I remember receiving instructions that appeared odd. The page layout was as dull as it could be, headlines became ridiculously small and we were told to avoid verb in headlines. So instead of ‘three killed in accident’ it was ‘death of three in accident’ or ‘passage of bill by NA’ rather than ‘NA passes bill’. In relaxed conversation with the newsroom staff Yusuf used to speak against Ayub, and ultimately had to flee the country. Ansari returned as editor and remained there till Altaf Gauhar became Editor-in-Chief.

As federal information secretary, Gauhar was the brains behind the draconian Press and Publications Ordinance, but suddenly he seemed to have discovered the virtues of free speech, as his criticism of ZAB’s policies show. Also adding to the Bhutto government’s discomfiture were two columns, more sarcastic than analytical, by S. R. Ghauri and Syed Najiulla. A versatile man, who later became an author also, Gauhar had to face prison, for the barbs in his editorials were too much for the government.
Unlike Yusuf and Gauhar, Mazhar Ali Khan was a dyed-in-the-wool progressive who knew journalism inside out and brought with him the valuable experience of being a former editor of the Pakistan Times. He abandoned Gauhar’s recklessness, and in his brief tenure ran the paper as a professional, and even though he differed with government policy on several issues, like his insistence on Bangladesh’s immediate recognition much to Bhutto’s annoyance, he did so by logic and reason. However, it was Ahmad Ali Khan’s quarter-century tenure that restored editorial stability to Dawn and gave a traditionally rightist paper a progressive thrust often branded ‘leftist’ by his critics.
Yet there was no seismic shift in policy, because Gen Ziaul Haq was a ruthless dictator, flogged journalists and used religion as a power tool. As Ahmad Ali Khan often told us, the challenge was to make use of such opportunities as were available and crawl rather than race. Thus, without frontally attacking the regime and challenging Zia’s usurpation of power, Dawn supported him on peripheral issues like Zakat and Salat, while opposing the pillars of his ‘ideological’ structure like Qazi courts; reminded the regime of Jinnah’s commitment to equality in law of all citizens and uncompromisingly stood for parliamentary democracy. The fact that Mahmoud A. Haroon, the paper’s owner, was Zia’s interior minister, made no difference to his policy.
A monumental decision on his part was to launch the weekly Economic & Business Review, which served as a forum for critically examining the regime’s policies, even if confined to business and finance. Gradually, as martial law gave way to ‘controlled’ democracy, Dawn opened its pages to a stunning variety of commentators ranging from Edward Said and Henry Kissinger from abroad to Dr Eqbal Ahmad, M. H. Askari, M. B. Naqvi, Omar Kureishi, Ayaz Amir, Ardeshir Cowasjee and Mazdak (Irfan Husain) at home.
His tenure also saw a technological revolution – from hot metal through photo offset to computerisation. By the time he bowed out, Dawn had emerged as an independent paper recognised for its critical yet sober journalism committed to a pluralistic society and statecraft. When he took over, Dawn was a six-pager; when he retired in 2000, it had four weekly magazines, with Dawn also having its Lahore edition. He also replaced the paper’s decades-old layout with a modified horizontal one.
Between Khan’s departure and Zaffar Abbas, the incumbent, we had three editors: Saleem Asmi, Tahir Mirza and Abbas Nasir. By no means should their contribution to Dawn be underestimated because of space constraints.
Saleem Asmi was the first Dawneditor from the news side, having served as news editor in Dawn and Khaleej Times, though like Mirza he too had a brief stint as a reporter. His grasp of the news was perceptive. One of his decisions was to publish Osama bin Laden’s interview by Hamid Mir, even though he was a non-staffer, because the interview contained hard news about nuclear technology. Gen Pervez Musharraf felt piqued because he was in America at the time. Asmi also paid attention to art coverage. Of the two magazines he left behind, The Gallery, as the name suggests, concerned art; the other was Books and Authors. Asmi also launched Dawn’s Islamabad edition.
Mirza had already made clear he wouldn’t be there for more than three years, because he was a writer and felt his talents circumscribed as editor. He was on his toes when the earthquake struck Pakistan and Azad Kashmir, and I think the quality of Dawn’scoverage and comments was better than that of any other daily. A man of principle he resigned his petrodollar job with Khaleej Timesas executive editor because the owner wanted him to write a ghost column for him.
Abbas Nasir had to operate in a totally different Pakistan where a multi-media world of cyber journalism with 24-hour TV news, FM radio and websites were forcing newspapers to think afresh. He made dawn.com what it today is by overhauling what critics used to call ‘yesterday´s newspaper on today’s web’. He also made the Dawn team realise that it would be absurd to merely report what TV had told our readers 24 hours earlier. So the print version had to have a dug-out bit of cerebral background to give the breakfast reader something different from the electronic channels’ ocular coverage. Nasir also came out most categorically in favour of civilian supremacy, included new writers for op-ed pages and mobilised the reporting side to come up with investigative stories which TV channels later followed.
While I have in my humble way given a brief assessment of our editors, I cannot but remember those countless unknown soldiers whose names the readers never knew but who helped the editors make Dawn what it is today. They are too numerous to be mentioned. In natural calamities or man-made disasters, street battles or war zones, the Dawnman has been aware of the fact that he is serving a paper founded by the man who founded Pakistan.
There is charisma in the word Dawn. In April 1950, the paper’s name was changed to Herald, inviting public wrath. The moniker Dawn returned, and Altaf Husain wrote in a page-one double-column box in colour, headlined Dawn zindabad: “I give them back their Dawn. No one is happier today than I. [...] Dawnwas never dead. It was not intended to die. It shall never die.”

The writer is Dawn’s Readers’ Editor
Click on the buttons below to read more from this special feature
COMMENTS (53)
An interesting historical document. It is well said that the power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Great man, great intelligence, but with great arrogance. That led him to his demise.
What populasim? Sheikh Mujib had the majority.
He was instrumental in division of Pakistan.
@Zak
He was an evil genius.
He was responsible for the break up of Pakistan.
A fairly accurate and true tale of ZA Bhutto rise and fall as a leader of one wing of the country or more accurately of two provinces of Pakistan out of five. He managed to get rid of the most populated Eastern wing with the help of Yayha Khan who used to call him as his ' Chum ' and then dismissed the popularly elected governments of the two in which he was not in power.The foregoing indicates his political intentions coupled with economic policies indicates his true intentions ie Hungry for Power,which ultimately led to his fall.His actions indicates his true degree of commitment to 'Socialism 'which is again not healthy.
What a superficial article! The ridiculous story about the Iraqi arms for Balochistan being recovered from Iraqi embassy. Even the most ignorant people know that it was just a facade created by Bhutto to get rid of the NAP governments and nothing else.The NAP leaders were at least as loyal Pakistanis as Bhutto. They had not conspired with Yahya to break up Pakistan. All of them had attended the assembly session in Dacca, Bhutto had not. If this is the level of professors at Columbia and IBA, then may God help Columbia and IBA.
An evil genius! selfish and self centered.
Still, his death sentence is the biggest mistake in the history of Pakistan. Pakistan is still paying the price for that. But Pakistan deserves that because till today we do not appreciate those who have been doing good for the country. We are good at pulling legs. He was intelligent, fearless strong leader who stood fast for what he wanted to achieve. Alas today's PPP does not reflect his legacy.
He was a person who drew a lot of attention across the world but only second to Nehru.
@Shaukat Ali Khan he meant in West Pakistan
The guy who destroyed Pakistan was Bhutto, and to a lesser degree was Sheikh Mujibur Rahman
A very good special report, "The triumph of populism". Enjoyed reading the supplement. Don't think we will ever have such populism after Jinnah and Bhutto.
@Shaukat Ali Khan Dear you need badly some history lessons!
What has been common between Bhutto and Shariff? Arrogance! Bhutto was overtly arrogant while Shariff is covert arrogant.
To all the people who call him selfish, the fact is that him and his family members gave their lives for this country. No other politician did that and that is the height of being selfless. History is very powerful, if you try to distort it or don't learn from it, it will eliminate you.
@Shaukat Ali Khan. Go read history before posting comments.
Zulfikar Ali Bhutto (1928-1979) was the best product of Ayub Khan Regime.
Despite all his weaknesses, he was the leader who gave the country a direction which, if it had pursued, we would have been far better today than we are - thanks to the military junta.
Dictatorship prevents a society from growing up and that is what happened to us.
Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto is still alive in the hearts of every poor people of Pakistan
Im a big fan of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto he was a patriotic Pakistani in 1946 when he was still a young boy studying in bombay he wrote a letter to Quaid e azam that i will even secrfice my live for Pakistan if i have to and i really appreciate what you're doing for muslims that's just inspired me those were his words
Bhutto started demise of Pakistan, starting with creation of bangladesh, politicizing of the bureaucracy, start of massive corruption, and dismantling of industry and all the institutions. Unfortunately pakistan has gone in a downward spiral since then
People calling him selfish should remember that he and his family are the only one in Pakistan politics that they even sacrificed their lives for Pakistan
@AhmAd Exactly man
Singing praise of Bhutto is fine but just answer me only one thing - Was he not instrumental in breaking your country by denying legitimate political power to its eastern wing ? Waiting for a reply from Pakistani patriots.
@Peace Wrong. His arrogance made the country lose East Pakistan. Is'nt it.
Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was an incredibly gifted towering magnetic personality.Pakistanis can never forget him.
@Imran Yes, history is powerful and it has also recorded the fact of secesson of Pakistan in 1971. Bhutto, the power-hungry politician computer with Yahya Khan and still U call him "selfless" Just b'coz he and his daughter died. Strange logic. Read Salil Tripathi's book on Bangladesh war and the stri cities committed by Pakistsni army on it's own people. So what you got, you lost east Pakistan. Did 'selfless' Bhutto criticise the army's sins in East Pakistan in 1971.
@Yahya Ali Yes he lives in the heart of every 'foolish' Pakistani who is blind to his foolish acts and omissions that resulted in the loss of half of the Pakistan.
@Imran How can u say that he gave life for country??? Was he happy to be hanged????......There was no option with him than to be get hanged. There is no doubt about his competency but in reality he was responsible for break up of Pakistan. Due to his undemocratic and egoistic approach of not accepting mandate of Sheikh Mujib ur Rehman, Pakistan got separated from its right hand in form of new country . Three families responsible for break up of Pakistan have met natural punishments in form of assassinations and killings....... Bhutto family, Sheikh Mujib family and Ghandi family of India.
@Ayub I'm surprised to hear that from a Pakistani. Keep the spirit alive - and endeavour to `light' few more Pakistani souls!
May I ask you please that why these articles are amended for clarity??? What is required to be cleared in them??
It's almost criminal to glorify Bhutto, without highlighting his treacherous role in the breakup of Pakistan. One man's ego ruined an entire country. It's sad how blind we can be
The intelligent most cunning and the man who broke Pakistan in his ego and desire for absolute power.
One thing must be said that in his time his PPP had the best lot of politicians of all political parties in the history of Pakistan but still as usual in our politics most were corrupt.
Bhutto was the best man to-date we have seen as a politician and ruler. He had his failings as a mortal, like we all do. In his death we have lost all hopes of making this country a progressive, modern, democratic and secular as envisaged by the founding father Mr. Jinnah.
@Salman don't make such scandalous judgements, brush up your facts.
He gave you nuclear technology and made China the best friend of Pakistan. Those two items are protecting Pakistan. Stop being negative and give credit where it is due!
@Om Prakash Pareek Focus on the mess in your own backyard first
In nut shell, though he was very intelligent, but he had power greed. No wonder he scarified the half of Pakistan to rule the rest of the country and then destroyed the industry and later was hanged because of his arrogance.
Would Z.A. Bhutto be the same Z.A. Bhutto if he was not born with a golden spoon in his mouth? Similarly, would Benazir Bhutto be the same personality if she was not born as a daughter of Z.A. Bhutto and Nusrat Bhutto? The answer is left at the disposal, deliberation and discussion of the educated, enlightened, enduring, exclusive and excelling readers and writers of this great DAWN forum.
@Yahya Ali None other than their own family members were the sole beneficiary of their death. You know whom am talking about.
Bhutto was a typical human being.
He was a smart man but didn't know how to save his life.
@Sarwar. Bhutto was secular in the sense of his personal habits , may be in his political or moral beliefs such as bringing up of his family etc etc but politically he never showed any interest in making Pakistan secular. Religious measures taken by him such as banning of use of liquor,holiday on Friday,declaration of a community as non- Muslim etc were in fact
Continuation of comments in reply to Sarwar : .. in fact were to solicit political and electoral support of religious elements. Perhaps seeds of transformation of a generally moderate Muslim society of Pakistan towards rigidity were laid . Gene was now out of the bottle. PNA movement led among others by the JI which politically outsted him was one such reflection of measures taken by him.
@Zak what intelligent measure he took during his rule. I Only credit him for sowing seed of democracy other than he made some worst descisions. Which on long run hurt Pakistan badly.
@Salman General Yahya Khan was the President and Chief Marshal Law Administrator of Pakistan. He had absolute power. Gen Yahya made serious political and military blunders which led to the division of Pakistan.
ZA BHUTTO TRUE LEADER OF OUR COUNTRY.
Dear Editor, You lack the courage to publish the truth about 1971 that happened in the then East Pakistan. How long you will hide the truth from the generations born after 1971?
He was the beginning of the end of the broad minded, safe and decent Pakistan that I was growing up in.
Bhutto indeed was a incredible leader. Angry young man of 70s.