Socio Cognitive Model Domination Ideology English Language Essay

Published: Last Edited:

This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.

This study aims to explore the veiled relationship among the language and its users. And how people use language and save their face. This article based upon the Van Dajik's socio cognitive model (2002). CDA scholars are typically concerned in the manner discourse (re)produces social domination, that is, the power abuse of one group over others, and how dominated groups may discursively resist such abuse. Words are not to be considered neutral but as having some exact meanings which are not always understandable to all readers or spectators. Through the analysis of three political talk shows of Private TV Channels, here is an attempt to show that how everybody in this world from any school of thought protect their ideology and represent it.

Key Words: CDA, Socio cognitive model, domination, Ideology, TV channels


Language is a mode of communication. It is a necessary tool of communication and collaboration among human beings. It is a system of communication which entails on a set of sounds and written symbols which are used by the people of a specific country or zone for communication and interaction. Language use to mention various channels of communication involving perceptible symbols, verbal and non-verbal sounds and gestures. The aim of language is to communicate with one and other. "Language is a purely human and non-instinctive method of communicating ideas, emotions and desires by means of voluntarily produced symbols."

(Edward Sapir, Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech. Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1921).

The use of language is an integral part of being human. Language and abstract thoughts are closely concomitant, and many people think that these two characteristics above all extricate human beings from animals. Whatever we say or express through our words always contains some meanings and represent our perceptions. "A language is a system of arbitrary vocal symbols by means of which a social group cooperates."(B. Bloch and G. Trager, Outline of Linguistic Analysis. Waverly Press, 1942).Language plays an important role in every field of life particularly in politics. In fact every action influenced and played by the language we use. There are always some methods to understand the hidden meanings and perceiving language. And the way we perceive language builds the foundation of social construction with one another in a specific society. Scientific study of a language is called 'linguistics'. There are some branches of linguistics which helps us to understand the actual meanings of an utterance and some branches of linguistics which tried to explain the relationship between language and perception. Because the way we use language represents our point of view and intentions about a particular issue which can be political or social. Language contains two coverings which are surface and real meanings or denotative and connotative meanings which fluctuates from each other. It is the aim of discourse to expose the working and context of language.

"..Using a language involves something that goes beyond the acquisition of structures and the ability to make appropriate choices in the realization of the particular language functions." (Yalden, 1987, p 39).

Every language finds its ways in discourse and in order to recognize the actual meanings of a text or speech it is obligatory to get into the core of that particular text or speech to go for the context. It is not an easy job to recognize the contextual meanings of a text or a speech. Discourse always puts light on the darker corners of a texts or speech which are concealed for a common reader of listeners. Because it is demonstrated that our words are not neutral and always have some hidden meanings according to political and social conditions.

Discourse & Discourse Analysis:

The term discourse analysis was first use by Zelling Harris as the name for 'a method for the analysis of the speech or writing for contributing descriptive linguistics beyond the limit of a single sentence at a time and correlating culture and language.' (Harris 1952)

The word discourse is an elastic term (both for speech and text). Originally the word discourse comes from Latin 'discurus' which denotes 'conversation speech'.

"Discourse analysis is the study of how stretches of language used in communication assume meaning, purpose and unity for their users: the quality of coherence. (Encyclopedic dictionary of Applied Linguistics by Keith Johnson and Helen Johnson, 1998)

"Discourse is the way in which language is used socially to convey broader historical meanings. It is language identify by social conditions of its use (by who is using it or under what conditions it is used). Language can never be neutral because it bridges our personal and social world". (HENRY AND CARO, 2002)

There is no agreement among linguists as to the use of the term discourse in that some use it in reference to texts, while others claim it denotes speech which is for instance illustrated by the following definition: "Discourse (is) a continuous stretch of (especially spoken) language larger than a sentence, often constituting a coherent unit such as a sermon, argument, joke, or narrative" (Crystal 1992:25).

Discourse explains that how texts relate to contexts of situation and context of culture. How texts are produced as a social practice, what texts tell us about incidents and what people think and belief. Discourse helps us to divulge the obscured meanings of a text or speech. It discusses the meanings on macro level. In discourse analysis background knowledge of any incident is very essential. For example if word "Black Death" (1348) mentioned anywhere (text or speech) it will be obvious for us to understand the entire story of spread of disease and in result casualties of humans. Background knowledge is very important to understand the context of a text or speech. It is evident that words are never unbiased and everything which is written or spoken has some meanings and through discourse analysis those meanings become transparent. It is discourse analysis which facilitates the analyzer from seeing language as abstract to seeing it as having some meanings related to certain conditions like historical, social or political.


As the term "critical" is exposing itself that deep analysis of text and speech and observing its good and bad aspects completely. Critically analyzing a written text and spoken is known as critical discourse analysis. CDA investigates the veiled meaning in the text; it is not easy for readers to acquire the tangible and factual meanings without the application of CDA.

"Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is a type of discourse analytical research that primarily studies the way social power abuse, dominance, and inequality are enacted, reproduced and resisted by text and talk in the social and political context." (Van Dijk, 2001, p. 352)

"CDA investigates, and aims at illustrating, "relationships between the text and its social conditions, ideologies and power-relations." (Wodak, 1996: 20).

CDA leads to critical study of any written or spoken text. As in political talk shows sometimes people didn't want to divulge the thing and they only reply in yes or saying no CDA helps to disclose the hidden meaning behind the speaker's speech.

Fairclough and Wodak (1997: 271-80) summarize the main tenets of CDA as follows:

1. CDA addresses social problems.

2. Power relations are discursive.

3. Discourse constitutes society and culture.

4. Discourse does ideological work.

5. Discourse is historical.

6. The link between text and society is mediated.

7. Discourse analysis is interpretative and explanatory

8. Discourse is a form of social action.

"CDA is concerned with studying and analyzing written texts and spoken words to reveal the discursive sources of power, dominance, inequality, and bias and how these sources are initiated, maintained, reproduced, and transformed within specific social, economic, political, and historical contexts" (van Dijk, 1988).

As already mentioned that CDA's main point is about the power and use of power which is indicated in the text and talk of those who struggle to preserve their influence over others, so it is understood that tyranny, inequity and biasness would be left unchallenged if the text is not observed and analyzed intensely and critically. "Given the power of the written and spoken word, CDA is necessary for describing, interpreting, analyzing, and critiquing social life reflected in text" (Luke, 1997).

As we already know according to above stated explanations and definitions that every person who speaks or write any text definitely has an ideology and defend that ideology by direct or indirect ways. To unveiled those motifs and understand them entirely is called critical discourse analysis. In this article we are going to analyze different political party's ideologies and different point of views about the "drone attacks" on Pakistan.



Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVS), also known as drones, are aircraft either controlled by 'pilots' from the ground or increasingly, originally follow a pre-programmed mission. There are dozens of different types of drones. Basically they can be divided into two categories: those that are used for reconnaissance and surveillance purposes and those that are armed with missiles and bombs. According to the US Department of Defense, a drone, or unmanned aircraft, is an "aircraft or balloon that does not carry a human operator and is capable of flight under remote control or autonomous programming." (DEP'T OF DEFENSE, 331 JOINT PUBLICATION 1-02, DICTIONARY OF MILITARY AND ASSOCIATED TERMS (2010)

(Amended July 15, 2012). Use of drones has grown quickly in recent years because it is very cheaper than manned aircraft and can stay aloft for many hours. As drones are controlled by remotes so there is no danger for flight crew's safety or other human needs. Drones are not new there origin can be traced from the World War I. (Time Line of UAVs, PBS, Throughout the 20th century they were used for surveillance purposes, most notably during the Gulf War and conflict of Balkan in the 1990s. (Mary Ellen O'Connell, Unlawful Killing with Combat Drones: A Case Study of Pakistan, 2004-

2009 3 (Notre Dame Law School Legal Studies Research Paper No. 09-43, 2010). The first armed drones were flown for Afghanistan in October 2001. (Eric Schmitt, Threats and Responses: The Battlefield: US Would Use Drones to Attack Targets, N.Y.

TIMES (Nov. 6, 2002),

use-drones-attack-iraqi-targets.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm.) In the aftermath of the September 11, 2011 attacks, the Bush administration began a

campaign of 'targeted killing' against suspected members of Al Qaeda and other armed

groups. (Q&A: US Targeted Killings and International Law, HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH (Dec. 19, 2011), The strike in Yemen set the precedent for what would later become a full

scale program of targeted killing by drone in Pakistan. After the US invasion of

Afghanistan, a number of Taliban fighters fled across the border into Pakistan and in

particular FATA, which borders Afghanistan. (Brian Glyn Williams, The CIA's Covert Predator Drone War in Pakistan, 2004-2010: The History

Of an Assassination Campaign, 33 STUDIES IN CONFLICT & TERRORISM 871, 873-74 (2010).

British and US Reaper and Predator drones are physically in Afghanistan and Iraq, control is via satellite from Nellis and Creech USAF base outside Las Vegas, Nevada. Ground crews launch drones from the conflict zone, then operation is handed over to controllers at video screens in specially designed trailers in the Nevada desert. One person 'flies' the drone, another operates and monitors the cameras and sensors, while a third person is in contact with the "customers", ground troops and commanders in the war zone. While armed drones were first used in the Balkans war, their use has dramatically escalated in Afghanistan, Iraq and in the CIA's undeclared war in Pakistan. (Chris Cole and Jim Wright published in Peace News in January 2010).

Pakistan and Drone Attacks:

Pakistan-US relations are very complex and convoluted by continuing drone attacks. Initially Pakistan appeared to support US strikes secretly. From 2004 through at least 2007, the Pakistani government claimed accountability for attacks that had, in fact, been led by the US, thus permitting the US to reject any participation. (Brian Glyn Williams, Death from the Skies: An Overview of the CIA's Drone Campaign in Pakistan, 29 TERRORISM MONITOR 8, 8 (2009); infra Chapter 2: Numbers). In 2008, according to cables revealed by Wikileaks, Pakistan's Prime Minister reportedly told US Embassy officials, "I don't care if they [conduct strikes] as long as they get the right people. We'll protest in the National Assembly and then ignore it." (US Embassy Cables: Pakistan Backs US Drone Attacks in Tribal Areas, GUARDIAN (Nov. 30, 2010), In 2009, both Pakistan's Prime Minister and its Foreign Minister openly celebrated the drone strike that killed Baitullah Mehsud, the suspected leader of Tehreek-e-Taliban, Pakistan (TTP), an armed group that promotes terrorist attacks inside Pakistan. (Shuja Nawaz, Drone Attacks Inside Pakistan-Wayang or Willing Suspension of Disbelief, 12 CONFLICT & SECURITY 79, 80 (2011).

It is very important to note that some segments of Pakistani population including FATA, support drone attacks that they kill terrorists who are very dangerous and a cause of constant fear for common people. Some supports military effort to attack and kill terrorist groups. However, it is clear that the majority of the population against drone practices.

A Pew Research Poll conducted in 2012 found only 17 per cent of Pakistanis favor the US

conducting "drone strikes against leaders of extremist groups, even if they are

conducted in conjunction with the Pakistani government." (PEW RESEARCH CENTER, PAKISTANI PUBLIC OPINION EVER MORE CRITICAL OF US 2 (2012), available at

This survey shows that 94 % Pakistani believes that drone attacks kill innocent people and 74 % say they are not necessary to defend Pakistan from extremist organizations. From June 2004 through mid-September 2012, available data indicate that drone strikes killed 2,562-3,325 people in Pakistan, of whom 474-881 were civilians, including 176 children. (The Bureau of Investigative Journalism)

Drones have become the subject of significant public debate now a day. People are raising their voices against the unlawful and innocent people killing in drone attacks. Pakistani officials have been very vocal particularly in 2012, in their opposition to ongoing drone attacks in FATA. They have asserted that the strikes are unlawful and against the sovereignty of Pakistan. Present paper is concerned with the CDA of different political parties of Pakistan on the issue of drone strikes and killing of innocent people.


Critical discourse analysis (CDA) is a type of discourse analytical research that primarily

studies the way social power abuse, dominance, and inequality are enacted,

reproduced, and resisted by text and talk in the social and political context. With

such dissident research, critical discourse analysts take explicit position, and thus

want to understand, expose, and ultimately resist social inequality.

CDA also focuses on how discourse structures influence mental representations. At

the global level of discourse, topics may influence what people see as the most important

Information of text or talk, and thus correspond to the top levels of their mental

models. Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) leads us to the study of unhidden meanings behind the anything written or spoken. Van Dajik socio cognitive model (2002) is used for the analysis. Every political party has its hidden agenda which they don't want to reveal in front of anyone. So CDA helps us to reveal the truth. Its being a long time we are seeing that political parties all over the world have conflicts with each other and they cannot ask anything directly so they use different ways to taunt them and through CDA we are able to know their hidden motives.


Pakistani news channels programs were taken for the analysis. The most viewed and popular programs are taken for CDA Capital Talk (Geo News) & Kal Tak (Express News). These programs were telecasted on 8th of October, at that time drones was much highlighted issue and every news channel highlights this issue. Following programs are listened very carefully and then focal points are judged and what was the CDA in that points. Both programs are analyzed in the same way and then a final conclusion is built.




Telecast on: October 8, 2012

Anchor: Hamid Mir

Guests: Shah Mehmood Qureshi, PTI

Parvaiz Rasheed, PML (N)

Faisal kareem Kundi, PPP

Bushra Gohar, ANP (Recorded statement of a question regarding topic)

Opening & Background:

This show is very prevalent and most viewed show in the PAKISTAN. This show aims to reveal the positive and negative aspects of political issues and movements within country. It is based upon facts and figures to show the reality to common people of PAKISTAN.

This show was telecast on October 8, 2012 on GEO T.V at 8:00 p.m according to Pakistan standard time (PST). It is based upon a hot issue "DRONE ATTACKS". The said issue is, at that time, and perhaps still, is a very hot issue of Pakistan. Show is based upon the march of a political party of Pakistan PTI (Pakistan Tehreek E Insaf) against drone attacks on WAZIRISTAN and its impact on the country and whole World.

Anchor initiates the show by unfolding some facts and figures which was in the result of the campaign against drone attacks. He discloses that for the first time in the world, international media is taking this issue earnestly and a debate is started throughout the world. International news channel "CNN" started an argument and on the website of the "CNN" an opinion poll is also started to know that how many people are in the favor and against the drone attacks, 43% people are against the attacks and 57% people are in favor of those attacks. He continued by giving some other citations of international newspapers like "WASHINGTON POST" and "NEW YORK TIMES", BRITISH newspaper THE GUARDIAN and TELEGRAPH, and TIMES OF INDIA these are all the newspapers which started argument about drone attacks.


Drone attacks are hot issue of Pakistan which is pointed out on international level by a political party of Pakistan, named "PTI" (PAKISTAN TEHREEK E INSAF). PTI marched against the drone attacks on the northern areas of Pakistan, towards SOUTH WAZIRISTAN. Anchor gave some facts which are in result of march against drones. It seems that host is totally satisfied with this act of that political party. He has projected a picture of opinion poll which started on the website of "CNN" about drone attacks.

Anchor presented some international newspapers references and showed a picture of newspaper "THE GUARDIAN" which started an argument about drone attacks in Pakistan. He also gave reverence of some other newspapers which are "THE NEW YORK TIMES"," WASHINGTON POST", "TIMES OF INDIA" and "TELEGRAPH". The basic purpose of anchor to show all these references of international media is to tell the people of Pakistan that this march was very successful and have many positive aspects which are in favor of Pakistan and against the unlawful killing of innocent people in the Northern areas of Pakistan with terrorists.

In the first four minutes of show anchor gave his own opinion regarding the issue of the day. And gave a brief introduction of "march", its effects on the country and world. During the whole introduction by anchor guests did not speak a single word because they are not invited yet to express their views.

"Ye Taliban k sath solidarity zyada the aur wahan k jo qabaili awam hai un k sath solidarity ka march nahi tha". (URDU)


"It was solidarity with Talibans not with the people of those tribes"

This statement given by BUSRA GOHAR, Member National Assembly of ANP (Awami National Party). Before coming towards guests anchor showed a clipping which was already recorded by the host related to the issue of the day. In this statement it can be seen that she is totally against this movement and she directly criticized the other party (PTI) that they are doing this not for the sake of country but showing solidarity with terrorist group, TALIBAN. She is condemning the march and it seems that she is in the favor of drone attacks which can be the agenda of her party.

After the recorded clips of different political party members, anchor comes towards the guests and talks to them. Firstly, he takes point of view of Shah Mehmood Qureshi (vice chairman of "PTI") about the peace march's success. He said that:

…..Us k bawajood log apnay wasail per aur nihatay wahan per gae aur qomi yakjehti ka muzahira kiya…………….hamara aik objective tha k hum ne izhar e yakjehti krna tha qabail ke awam se…………aur hum ne aik objective wo hasil kiya……..Dusra hamara objective tha k wahan k jo mutasireen hain unki halat e zar ko ujagr kiya jae…….aksriyat mutasireen innocents hain high value targets to sirf 2% hain….teesra objective tha is issue ko internationalize kiya jae…..agla objective tha k march ko pur aman rkha jae…..akhri objective wahan k logon ke halat e zaar dikhana tha……….aur hum ne ye sab objective haasil kr liyay. (URDU)

Translation: (blank)

This statement shows his great satisfaction about the success of their peace march. He says that their objective was not only to condemn against drones but they have some other objectives too which are accomplished by their party very beautifully after facing lot of troubles from the government and other political parties which are in power. He is presenting the objectives which are, to show the solidarity with the people of tribes which we achieved. Our second objective was to show the condition of affected people in front of world because mostly affected people are innocent but they killed while strikes on terrorists through drones. Third objective was to internationalize this issues which was very important. Next objective was to make this march really peaceful and safety of people. Last objective was to show the pathetic condition of people of those areas. These were all the objectives which were presented by "PTI" and they are very happy that they achieved all their objectives. All those objectives show the ideology of their party for drone attacks that they are against drones and also against the unlawful killing of innocent people of Pakistan. Through this step one can easily understand the basic ideology of "PTI". Every political party and every person in every action defends and presents his basic ideology. It was the ideology of PTI which they represented through their peace march and to show their solidarity with affected people. It was a useful step for the safety of country and also for the people of Pakistan.

Now anchor is turning towards his other guest which belongs to another political party. He takes his opinion about the peace march and its results that it was a positive outcome of peace march that world started to talk on this issue or not. He said that:

…….Stanford University k jis research report ke baat inhon ne ke , us mein unhon ne kaha hai k drone attacks counterproductive hain. Ye behes in k march se shuru nae hue bal k ye behs shuru ho gae university ke report k baad se………ye to ba zahir yun be nazar ata hai k American hakumat khud b apni policies mn kch tabdeeliyan lanay jar hi ho………to ye baat nazar ati hai k pesh qadmi inki nahi hai pesh qadmi to khud americans ke taraf se ho rae hai albatta inhon ne us pesh qadmi ko follow zarur kiya hai…… (URDU)


… they talked about Stanford University's report , they told in that report that drone attacks are counterproductive. This argument started was started before their march rather their report… can be noticed that American government wants to change their policies… it can be noticed that it is not initiated by them but Americans, they only followed their policy….

This was the statement given by the member of PML (N), Parvaiz Rasheed when anchor asked him about the peace march by PTI. He says that it was not a very hall mark work which is really highlighted by the international media and people liked it very much. He is directly objecting the peace march by saying that is was useless because AMERICAN government started taking public opinion through the surveys of Stanford University which shows that American govt. also wants to change their policies about the drone attacks. So, this peace march was totally useless and there was no need of this march. It can easily see that this person belongs to a rival political party so he is just objecting their struggle. It can be the reason to say that it was not a real march and Americans want to change their policy themselves about drones, that people started liking this party and this thing destroying their vote bank so he is objecting to save their position. He says that they are following the American policy. He says before all these surveys we protest against all this. At that time nobody highlighted us. Now he is highlighting his work to object PTI's work and to highlight their work which was done a long time before. Here anchor instantly says that:

Chalo dair aie drust aie (URDU)

Here anchor adds his point of view in favor of peace march that they did a great job in fact it was late but not very late. And it is very useful step for Pakistan's and Pakistani nation's security. This point shows that anchor is also in the favor of this march and in his point of view it is a very good step.

Parvaiz Rasheed continues by saying that:

……Agar to ye march hota drones k khilaf to hum inko zarur mubarik bad detay………stage k oper jitney log b kharay hain mein identify nae kr saka k kisi aik ka takul b Janubi Waziristan se hai……Guardian mein likha hai k yun lagta tha k log jo ticktain kenay k khwahishmnd hain in ki jamat k aur jo ohday hasil krna chahtay hain ye tmam wo log hain jo mustakbil mn in k umeedwar hon ge jo intikhab mn hissa lena chahtay hain…… (URDU)


….we celebrate with them if this march originally against drone……I could not identify a single person who belonged to South Waziristan… is quoted in GUARDIAN that these are the people who wants ticket or can be possible candidates who will participate in referendum….

This statement again is full of objection by rival party. He again criticizes that it was not a march for drones but they actually want to boost up their political strength by doing this king of marches. He criticizes by saying that there was not a single person standing with the chairman of PTI, Imran Khan who belonged to WAZIRISTAN, here he quotes international newspaper "THE GUARDIAN" that they wrote about people who are standing on the stage that these are all those people who want to gain party tickets and comes in power with this party. Here again anchor corrects him by saying that it is not the saying or analysis of "THE GUARDIAN" but they quoted an individual here. These moldings of things according to own will and use it against rivals can be seen by CDA. Since the paper is to discuss the hidden agendas of different people, here by molding this quotation of newspaper means a lot in CDA. Now it shows the hidden agenda of this person who is criticizing again and again that he wants only to degrade the other party. It can be the ideology of his party that degrade other's party's work and highlight your own work just to get the power by getting the attention of people. All above mentioned criticism shows the point of view of PML (N).

Shah Mehmood Qureshi now answering the all the allegation by rival party's member by saying that:

…..Hum ne to jo Pakistan ke stated policy hai us ki taeed kr rhay thay…. (URDU)


……We followed the stated policy of Pakistan….

This statement shows the policy of PTI in the answer of all the allegations that we are actually following the policy of Pakistan; we were not following the American policy. We were following the resolution which was passed by Parliament. It was the actual policy on which they did this peace march.

In the answer when Pervaiz Rasheed finds all his answers and did not accept them from the core of his heart he just adds poetic verses which are:

Kya itnay he jarri thay hareefan e aftab

Chamki zra c dhop to kamron mein aa gae (URDU)

These poetic verses show a blast of hidden meanings and his point of view which is very important in CDA. He puns in a very lighter way and shows his real point of view against the other party that their march was useless and it was truly based to boost up their political strength. And in the way if they found any trouble they changes their agenda again and again.

A new guest joined in the middle of the program during a short break. Faisal Kareem Kundi (Deputy Speaker National Assembly) from PPP. While watching a clipping of Imran Khan's speech during peace march, Faisal kareem kundi comments that:

…..Aik point pe mein Imran Khan k sath agree krta houn Molana k point pe….. (URDU)


"……..I agree with Imran Khan on one point……."

This statement shows the hidden meaning of that person that he also against the MOLANA FAZAL UR REHMAN. As mentioned earlier that paper aims to find out hidden meanings through CDA we find the hidden meaning of that person point of view that he also do not MOLANA, and agree with PTI point of view about that person.

At the end anchor concluded by saying that:

…..Drone hamlay shuru honay k baad khudkush hamlon mn shiddat aie hai agr drone hamlay band ho jaen to ho sakta hai khudkush hamlay b kam ho jaen bal k khatam bhi ho saktay hain. (URDU)


"After the drone attacks, suicide attacks boost up if drone attacks stop, Suicide attacks can lessened or stop.

In the ending anchor concluded with the statement which shows his unlikeness towards drone attacks. He finds these drone attacks a cause of terrorism and suicide attack with in the country. He strongly condemns this kind of strikes it can be a reason that he is in favor of Peace march made by PTI.


Show: Kal Tak

Telecast on: October 8, 2012

Anchor: Javed Chaudhary

Guests: Ch. Imtiaz Safdar Warraich, PPP

Khurram Dastagir, PML (N)

Imran Ismail, PTI

Senator Dr. Khalid Somro JUI-F (on telephone call)

Opening & Background:

This show is very prevalent and most viewed show in the PAKISTAN. This show aims to reveal the positive and negative aspects of political issues and movements within country. It is based upon facts and figures to show the reality to common people of PAKISTAN.

This show was telecast on October 8, 2012 on Express News at 10:00 p.m according to Pakistan standard time (PST). It is based upon a hot issue "DRONE ATTACKS". The said issue is, at that time, and perhaps still, is a very hot issue of Pakistan. Show is based upon the march of a political party of Pakistan PTI (Pakistan Tehreek E Insaf) against drone attacks on WAZIRISTAN and its impact on the country and whole World.

Anchor starts the program by giving an example of Sirilankan's team captain his great spirit. Team captians leaves his post because he feels himself responsible for the loss of the team. As Javerdany was a very good player and his records also show him a great player. This is how he feel for his country and he represents him for the sake of his country even though he was not responsible for the loss because cricket is game of chance. These are the qualities of a good leader and leadership laws. Anchor here compared a PAKISTANI leaders and their laws with the Sirilakan captains that are our leaders have this kind of spirit, the situation of our country is infront of whole world even of critical situation our leaders didn't feel soul for the country no one takes responsibility. Some political parties even don't admit Prime Minister and President but they don't agree to give resign from the parliament. Who is responsible for all that depreciative situation? Do our politicians have power like the captain if they have soul then they don't need any Accountability bill but if soul dies then nothing will work?


Drone attacks is the hot issue in Pakistan which is pointed out on international level by a political party of Pakistan, named "PTI" (PAKISTAN TEHREEK E INSAF). PTI marched against the drone attacks on the northern areas of Pakistan, towards SOUTH WAZIRISTAN. Anchor put a question to the member of PTI:

Molana fazul-ur-rehman k bary mai …….wo zardari sahb ka right hand han…..Imran khan sahb Islamabad ki taraf bhi march krain ga…. Karna kia chahty han aap? (URDU)


About Molana Fazal Ur Rehman ….he is the right hand of Zardari….Imran khan will march towards Islamabad…..What you want to do actually?

Anchor put these two questions to member of PTI on which he asked that we go to Wazirstan for awareness about drones that how many families are victim and last to highlight the issue in front of International media, we achieved our goal. In this Molana played a negative role, party of Molana distributed pamphlets in the area that Imran Khan is coming along with Jews. This was to sabotage, which was not a good activity. PTI members said that Molana was afraid that may be he will face problems by Imran khan Peace march. And as far second question is concerned PTI's member said that Islamabad March is our judicial right whenever we want we can do a march and demand for an elections and weaken the government. Further proceeding he says that Molana fazul-ur-rehman is the right hand of Zardari whenever there is any bill to pass and any serious action Zardari takes, always Molana is with him. Molana was also with Musharaf they take seats from the present government and always being standing with them even he was with Musaraf while drones started and also with him in the issue of Lal Masjid. This shows how the one party thinks of the other and it also reveals that Molana Fazul-ur-Rehman moves his way to that party which is handling the government and also take benefits from the present government.

Then anchor takes Dr. Khalid Somro on telephone line and asked him about two questions which the PTI's member asked about his party, that whether u have distributed pamphlets against Imran Khan and secondly, anchor asked is this right that Molana Fazul-ur-Rehman is right hand of zardari

JUI-F's member replied:

"..Tou agr mein ya kahon k Imran khan sahb Pervaiz Musharaf sahb k right hand han….. Pervaiz Musharif sahb na drone hamly shoro krvay, us waqat Imran Khan sahb na aman march q nhe ki…….90 Km pehly q wapis chalay ay shootings pori q ho gaee……" (URDU)


…If I say that Imran khan is the right hand of Musharaf…Pervaiz Musharar started drone attacks, why Imran Khan did not peace march….why shooting was completed before 90 km…..

Member firstly didn't gave the answer to the first question he directly start blaming the Imran Khan that he is the right hand of Mushraf. Basically drones were started by Musharaf, at that time why don't Imran Khan took a March against drones. JUI-F's member says that it is just a drama to attain the attention of the people and to become popular. Why Imran khan's shootings close at ninety KM away ends. And he asks can you tell that where Molana does was with Zardari while any wrong decision. As the discussions further proceed both the PTI's and JUI-F's member start leg pulling they blame each other. This shows that both of the parties dislike one another and to prove their self right they are blaming each other.

Anchor raise a question to PML (N)'s member that when it is time to take a practical action Imran Khan's leads but you still remain silent. On this PML(N)'s member ask that the most practical way is to put the problem in Parliament, if parliament didn't listen to this then thousand people gathering in Tank didn't be noticed and heard. Beside this talk we would see that the member of PML-N also agree that drones should be stopped but he didn't like the way the other party did because he thinks that what our party do is write on contrary PML-N's member also blames the government that if present government is not taking any action then it's useless to gather the people and start the march. This is indicating that not a single member of party is trying to admit that other one is also right. They try to impose their own thoughts that they are doing the right way, as if we take a general look it is being noticed that each party believe that the problems is right but they want their own way to settle the problem not do discussions with each other to solve the matter.

"Log in ko chor rahy han, log PTI ko chor rahy han or ya chahty han k hum kis tarhan apni girti hoi saakh ko rok lain" (URDU)

Translation: "People are leaving them, People leaving PTI and they want to maintain their reputation…"

PPP's member put an objection towards PTI that people are leaving PTI and to maintain their reputation they are doing this kind of March. On PPP's objection anchor asked to PTI's member is this is right?

PPP's member gave a statement that government is already doing work on diplomatic level, international level and also in parliament. As government has taken action on Salala's issue and stop Natto supplies. It's not just a case of four to five thousand people that they will stop the drones, if it is possible then everybody is ready to go. It's just in the hand of government. This show that the party which is governing the country didn't bother the other parties and they want to implement their own rules and regulations. As government wants to do any action they take on their own will as himself PPP's member agreed this on Salala's issue.

"Kia Imran Khan Ka aman March kamiyab tha?" (URDU)


"Was Imran Khan march successful?"

Public opinion was shown that Imran khan's peace March was successful or not. Eighty three percent was in favor that peace March was successful while seventeen percent people think that it was not successful. As we go for the public opinion we see that public want some change and they want that drones should be stopped as CNN ratings also tell us that public wants peace however it should be by doing a peace March or by resolving the issue in the parliament.

Final Conclusion:

From all the above discussion throughout the show we see that all the members agree that drones should stopped but they all having different views. All the party members deny one another and try to implement that what they think or doing is right other one is not. They blame each other and they even didn't accept a single thing regarding each other. Because they have different ideologies and they want to attract people, and also don't want that people attract toward any other political party by their any action. While solving the issue or to make better decisions they start personal conflicts. As we can also suggest from the anchors starting speech that our leaders are free of soul they don't think for country benefits. The best leadership is shown if leaders represent themselves for country while our leaders feel themselves free from every fault and their internal conflicts and clash between ideologies matter a lot.