No chink of light

The writer is a freelance columnist
and former newspaper editor.
Three years after the YouTube website, one of the most popular on the internet globally, disappeared from computer screens in Pakistan, there is no sign of an imminent comeback. This is despite the fact that the blackout has been taken to court, brought up in parliament and debated at all kinds of other forums. But despite this, the government essentially remains adamant.
A statement was made this year stating there were no plans to restore the channel which, apart from being a usually popular source of entertainment, offers people information and access to educational websites including the excellent Khan Academy, with its free videos now educating millions around the world. The reasons go back to a video posted three years ago, with content insulting to Islam. Yes, the video is objectionable. But there is no compulsion at all to immediately turn to it the moment YouTube is restored.
There are in fact many things on YouTube, and other websites, which various people may find hurtful or damaging in various ways. But this does not mean they should simply be blanked out. The choice of what we choose to watch, and what we do not, lies with us or, in the case of children, in their parents.
We need also to think a little bit about ourselves. The fact is that a similar ban on YouTube does not exist in any other Muslim country. Those that were imposed for very brief periods have long since been lifted. Are we then attempting to claim we are superior Muslims to those living in other nations? Quite what is the purpose of the ban?
The fact that the government rather unwisely embroiled itself in a long battle with YouTube over removing the film from its sight appears also to have boiled over into a matter of ego, resulting in the prolonged ban which really does no good at all. Indeed, it would be odd if in a nation of nearly 180 million Muslims, a huge number of them rushed to that one film appearing somewhere on the huge channel the moment it was restored. Why, after all, would a rational set of people do this?
The answer appears to be that we are not a rational set of people. Or at least our government does not comprise of rational men and women. Organisations have argued hard in court for YouTube to be brought back. The effort to persuade the company to remove the content we do not like has failed. This should simply be accepted. As it is, most of YouTube can be watched through proxies everywhere in the country. All the ban has done is make life just a little more complicated for people. Why we would want to do this is extremely hard to understand – and three years is a long, long time indeed.
It can be assumed that the government is perhaps concerned about the reaction of the religious right, which so quickly takes to the streets over issues such as the film, but strangely enough is silent as Syrians die on the high seas. There have been no offers of help to these unfortunate persons caught up in a war which is not of their own making. How then do we decide our courses of action? And with the crackdown continuing against militant groups in the country, surely this is the right time to take a simple step knowing that they are less likely to turn on to the streets. In any case, the time period has been long enough for most to forget about the original reason for the ban.
There is something else to think about here. We appear to have become among the most narrow-minded of nations in the world. A widening of thinking is becoming essential. Just days ago, the radical Pope Francis who has taken his name from Saint Francis of Assisi and modelled himself as a man devoted to helping the poor, said in a statement that will undoubtedly create controversy – that a traditional notion of God in Christianity is outdated and that we should think outside the box.
The Pope has suggested that God can be found in many places, that many wrongs have been committed in His name and that there are many good people whose goodness deserves to be recogniwed even if they do not believe in a superior power in the traditional sense. Of course, this is not something we can agree on. But the fact that there is freedom to think about it in so much of the world is something we do need to ponder on. There is much in the manner that we treat religion that needs to be reconsidered and rethought more clearly and for the greater good.
Mere ritual really serves very little purpose. Of course, there is no harm in it. It provides comfort to many and helps set out the pattern of life. But with ritual must also come real good. The simple sacrifice of an animal on Eidul Azha is a rite that benefits the poor in many ways, with meat distributed widely. It is the one time of the year when the least wealthy get to eat a commodity that lies beyond their means. But at the same time, we need to think of sacrifice in its broader context. Should we not be sacrificing more of our wealth, more of our land, more of our budget to benefit those most in need? Are we capable of running a true austerity drive rather than one just put together to boast about? Too many of our politicians have done this.
Most of all, it is necessary that we do what is right. The motives that drive us to this can indeed stem from religion; but we should make certain that we do not use religion to guide us towards acts which harm others or inflict societal destruction. This has happened again and again, in all kinds of cruel and barbaric ways.
The YouTube ban is one example of thoughtlessness or even barbarity. Why should we take away from people a tool that can benefit them in so many ways? This is not a question of just the wealthy. Pakistan is now the fourth highest internet user among the nations in the world. By blocking off a channel, we are closing doors on the faces of millions of people.
It is absolutely true that YouTube is not always used to educate or inform. But then, there should be no Big Brother to watch over what people do. This conscience has to come from within ourselves and even now with YouTube banished, there is plenty of opportunity to watch what is immoral or wrong in both religious and human terms on the web.
No government imposed ban can change the way people act. The feeling must come from within and it is time, nearly 1,100 days after the ban was imposed, to just think about why it is there at all and what purpose it is serving to keep YouTube away from so many people. Logically, it seems, there is no purpose at all other than a matter of ego and perhaps an attempt to appease certain groups in a confused society.

Email: kamilahyat@hotmail.com