Disturbing the comfortable

The shrinking space for voicing dissent in Pakistan is not something that has emerged during the tenure of the incumbent government. The events that transpired last week, including the controversial notices issued by Pemra and the restrictions placed at the Karachi Biennale are merely the crescendo in a prolonged and consistent effort to drown out critical voices.

Ironically, the last time freedom of expression was promoted by a government in Pakistan was in the era of General Musharraf who ended the monopoly of the state on television,and liberalized the media through Pemra Ordinance, 2002 and ancillary policies. Having seen the cost paid by the general for such benevolence, it is not surprising that the democratic governments since have been reluctant to promote freedom of expression.

From the passage of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 (allowing suppression of online dissent) to the handling of the Dawn Leaks saga, the PML-N hardly covered itself in glory. However, the unabashed attacks on freedom of speech during the tenure of the incumbent government, in particular the egregious suppression of artistic expression at the Karachi Biennale, have certainly upped the ante.

What is even more alarming is that certain segments of the public seem to be sympathetic to such measures. Some suggest that critical voices tarnish the image of the country and play into the hands of adversarial countries. Those that voice criticism against the state or its institutions are ‘anti-state’ as per this strand of logic.

Interestingly enough, such logic is not unique to Pakistan. One need not look further than neighbouring India to see ‘nationalists’ and ‘patriots’ holding similar views. Any journalist questioning the version of the Indian establishment about the strikes in Balakot or highlighting the atrocities in Kashmir was also labeled as anti-state. And yet the same public that cheers for the triumph of intellect and humanity over jingoistic patriotism across the border celebrates and partakes in asphyxiating self-critical voices in their own country.

Yet another segment believes that we are far too gullible and naïve as a nation to discern propaganda and ‘fake news’ from the truth, and thus information must be filtered by the powers that be prior to its consumption by public at large. These concerns are eloquently addressed in the concurring note of Justice Louis D Brandeis’s in Whitney v California, 274 U. S. 357 (1927) in the following words:

“…discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine...

“Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears.

“…no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present, unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil … the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.”

Tweets from some ministers of the incumbent government critical of the recent actions of Pemra were briefly encouraging but the quick rebuke by the prime minister doused any hope for ‘tabdeeli’. The prime minister would do well to consider the words of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Pakistan Broadcasters Association vs Pemra:

“…freedom of speech goes to the very heart of a natural right of a civilized society…. It…leads to discovery of truth, it … provides a mechanism to facilitate achieving a reasonable balance between stability and social change…The concept of freedom of media is based on the premise that the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is sine qua non to the welfare of the people. Such freedom is the foundation of a free government of a free people.”

In the absence of free speech, even democratic processes such as elections run the risk of becoming farcical. It is only critical self-reflection as opposed to self-indulgence that can lead to social progress based on the discovery of truth. Aggrandizement of state institutions or the state while turning a blind eye to social ills will neither enhance our reputation in the international arena nor solve these problems.

The symbolic expression of the sordid reality of Karachi through artistic means would not have tarnished Pakistan’s reputation but the attempt to suppress it certainly did. The DG Parks remonstrated that parks were not meant for political activities. My thoughts immediately strayed not only to the PTI Jalsa at the Iqbal Park but to the passage of the Lahore Resolution at the same place.

The DG Parks also claimed the exhibit was vandalism not art. In the words of Banksy, “Art should comfort the disturbed and disturb the comfortable”. Considering the disturbance caused to the comfortable, the exhibit certainly qualifies as an exceptional piece of modern art.

The writer is a lawyer based in Islamabad.

Email: aniquesalman@gmail.com