Hard Choices

To ask for introspection, to absorb the full implication of the conflict and all that was at stake circa November, 2007 was to be a closet commando sympathiser, being on somebody’s payroll and a traitor to the cause, etc. The Army Chief and President rolled into one cannot send the superior judiciary home: period; was the easy constitutional and moral position, and incidentally the completely correct one, then and now. However, the flip side was having a judiciary that would have been compelled to take a political position, judges who would now have allies and adversaries, who still after being restored will be upright and independent, yet, to expect ‘objectivity” would have been unreasonable. There was little appetite for merely this realisation.

We like our battles as neat morality tales; our sides being purer than pure and the opponents as monsters out of Grendel. It becomes sad and erroneous when the conflict is between two deeply, deeply, flawed adversaries. Some principles are still more important than others. Yet, to not acknowledge the complexity of the situation, while being fun and thrilling, leads to overeating pies of the humble variety, egg smeared faces and endless sincere apologies. The conflict then was between the patently illegal acts of holding the delusions of being the messiah General Musharraf and the prospect of having an ever slightly compromised, populist and self-righteous judiciary headed by our saviour, His exalted Lordship Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry.



One has tried and done the kicking while both of them were up and hence there is not much of a point today. Nevertheless, both with delusions of grandeur and popularity were more alike than the Che Guevara shirt-wearing Marxists singing Habib Jalib in unison with revolutionaries from the Jamaat-e-Islami realised. We lived through the commando’s hysterics and we were destined to live through the sermonising of Justice Chaudhry. This does not mean, one does not pick sides, it just means that a degree of self-consciousness is maintained while picking one; the side then was the cause of the Judiciary and in personal opinion, the right one, as long as one knew when to end the cheerleading and deep down brace oneself for what was to come.

It is unnerving in almost how identical a fashion the conflict plays out again. It is dispiriting in how uncritically and identically, sides are picked again. The conflict now is between Geo and the Military establishment; neither can seriously claim moral high grounds. This is not a conflict between forces of good and evil or any such elevated things. The choices as regards the result are unflattering again. If the military conclusively wins this round, it is goodbye to freedom and independence of media. If Geo emerges victorious, the monopolistic corporate media house with a less than glorious history will very probably become more manipulative, more arm twisting.

It does have a seminal principle involved, namely, the freedom of expression, in particular the freedom to say offensive things, of confronting the consensus. One should pick a side again, the side of free expression. However, the position should not be an unexamined one, neither the institution representing the principle be glorified as a great exemplar of moral or journalistic virtues.

Principles and people with them feel the moral compulsion to make strange choices. Geo gave a deadline every week for when the previous federal government will be sent packing and never once apologised. Yet, the young Chairperson of the PPP stands with them today. Geo and its associated papers ran a shameful smear campaign against the courageous Ms Asma Jahangir, yet, she today sides for free expression. Interestingly or perhaps, tragically enough, those dubbed ‘liberal fascists’ by Messer Ansar Abbasi and Co are the only ones outside of their group that today seek to defend them. The ‘patriotic’ friends of Mr Ansar Abbasi did not blink for a moment in picking the side of the ‘ultimate patriots’. What is infinitely sad is that once this is over, which it might be, relatively soon, the old friends will be back and the ‘liberal fascists’ back in the firing line as ’western/foreign/RAW/Mossad/Blackwater’. People with genuine principles and convictions are ‘allies’ only during a crisis, in times of peace, they make for easy targets. Remember, they do not shoot you or bomb you, etc.

Today, when Mr Abbasi forcefully goes on for freedom of expression and against censorship, one cannot help but remember the feeling of pride displayed when his moral crusade against YouTube succeeded, and Pakistani were saved from this great evil via a ‘ban’. Mr Abbasi is not against censorship, he is just against this particular attempt at censorship. And those of us who oppose all censorship, merely find ourselves agreeing with him today.

The failings of the military establishment are many and so are the sins of Geo. Yet, the parallel is not exact. Repressive state machinery/institution is qualitatively different from a Media group, albeit an irresponsible one, and so are the consequences. We the ‘fascists’ were attacked by Geo, our ‘patriotism’ assailed on ‘Kerry-Lugar’, ‘Memogate’ against Geo’s present adversary and numerous other examples. Is a modicum of consistency in future too much to ask for? Today is not a day for the full accounting of Geo’s missteps. That day will be when Geo is back up and firing, consider it a ‘liberal fascist’ code of courtesy.

Geo, like any huge organisation, is a multitude, with the very best and saner voices (Hamid Mir being in this group) and some not so. This is a time for these saner voices to prevail and at least, initiate a process of self-examination. Many of us have no choice but to uphold the right to free expression, since we are prisoners to convictions. Geo will also have to demonstrate that it values free and fair expression as a principle and not as a strategic tool for this particular battle. Any unilateral ban or even cable channel gymnastics are unacceptable. The problems caused by free expression are only cured by more free expression and not less. Grand battles rely on clichés, so Mr Ansar Abbasi and friends, let me quote the clichéd saying of that ‘Fascist Heathen’, Voltaire, “I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to death your right to say it.” The fatalism and the suicide wish are not lost on one.

Published in The Express Tribune, May 4^th, 2014.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.