Balancing freedoms
There are some who believe that entertainment of any kind is evil and must be stopped
The writer is a practising advocate of the Supreme Court and a former president of the Supreme Court Bar Association
I am not a pornographer but a story writer — Manto
Saadat Hasan Manto is famously remembered for saying, in defence of Thanda Gosht: “My stories are for healthy people, normal beings, not for minds who dig up carnal meanings in innocent and pure things.” Manto shunned hypocrisy, daring to show society its reflection in the mirror.
There are some who believe that entertainment of any kind is evil and must be stopped. To them, any kind of enjoyment is a sin: films, dramas and shows which show men and women together are pornographic and songs are the work of the devil. These people do not want our media to highlight social evils because that would allegedly destroy society’s ‘morals’. They would have us believe that in Pakistan, people are not murdered for greed, women are not slaughtered in the name of ‘honour’, children are not abused, judges do not make illegal appointments, sitting prime ministers are not accused of corruption and everything is blissful.
For them, revealing reality will instigate people towards nefarious activities. These ‘moral police’ think they have a right to control what people see and hear. They believe the public is too foolish and naïve to know what is good for them. The worst example of censorship is that of Ziaul Haq, who had the gun to enforce his will, destroying our culture and ability to tolerate.
In the age of internet, such fanatics do not have the authority or mandate to impose their will on Pakistan’s entertainment world, but their desire to do so remains. The only way they can succeed is to hide behind the concept of ‘obscenity’. This is what happened to Manto. Those who issued fatwas against him could not refute the truth of his stories. The only way to silence him was to try to censor his books.
It is by labelling almost everything immoral that they want to bring literature, drama, cinema and even social media under censorship. Entertainment exists simply for the sake of entertainment — something to be enjoyed, a source of laughter, a reason to cry and an escape from the harsh realities of life. Everyone desires to be entranced by the beautiful melodies of Noor Jehan and Mehdi Hassan. Art is universal and belongs to the whole of mankind.
This is not to say that anything and everything can be projected on television and cinema. Entertainment does not mean freedom to be obscene. There must be a balance. Certain things are unacceptable under the garb of entertainment: for instance, sexually explicit material or pornography.
Even Articles 19 and 19A of the constitution, which guarantee all citizens of Pakistan the fundamental rights to freedom of expression and access to information, subject these rights to reasonable restrictions imposed by law. In a deeply conservative society like Pakistan, the challenge, in balancing these rights and limitations, becomes all the more difficult but not impossible. How is society to undertake this balancing act?
Firstly, no one group of people can interpret morality in their own perverse way, imposing it on the rest. Interpretation of terms such as ‘indecency’ varies drastically among groups. As society evolves, it advances through various forms of art: what may be obscene today may not be tomorrow. What is offensive is subjective: what is obscene is even more subjective. Some people would say singing or dancing on television is immoral. Others would say that even discussion on women’s health issues is indecent.
Ultimately, what restrictions are reasonable is to be decided by the people, not by any particular group. It is the legislature alone, not the executive or judiciary nor any section of the people, which can determine what can or cannot be seen. This is why Article 19 specifies that reasonable restrictions can only be imposed by law. Even parliament, while enacting such laws, must ensure that the restrictions on entertainment are reasonable and proportionate to the significance of the legitimate objective.
Secondly, in order to avoid censorship it is the duty of the media to determine what content should be broadcast. It is only when self-regulation fails that a regulatory authority can take action on a case-by-case basis.
In Pakistan, parliament has designated the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Pemra) as the sole regulatory authority to monitor media content. Pemra and the Pakistan Broadcasters Association have agreed on a Code of Conduct 2015. These regulations provide the correct balance. To ensure nothing ‘obscene’ is broadcast, media content is monitored by in-house monitoring committees of the respective channels, leaving enough leeway for channels to produce entertainment according to the wishes of the people. As a watchdog, but not a censor, it is Pemra’s mandate to examine public complaints on a case-by-case basis, taking action accordingly.
For 13 months since passing of this code, 762,120 hours of transmission have been broadcast by TV channels and only three times have fines been imposed by Pemra, clearly demonstrating that Pakistani media has acted responsibly in this balancing act.
Unfortunately it appears that Pemra, contrary to the law, has begun to issue dictatorial prohibitions that remind one of Zia’s censorship era, such as, how women are to dress and not to air programmes in which couples are in ‘close proximity’. Pemra wants to impose Saudi-style vigilante control, but Pakistan is different and this cannot be tolerated here.
Pemra’s recent directions may be a result of the case which has come up before the Islamabad High Court in which the concept of ‘entertainment in Pakistan’ has been challenged. Without commenting on the case’s merits, I ask the question: what is the role of the court in regulating entertainment? The courts are protectors of the constitution and defenders of the right of freedom of expression and, in a democracy, have no right to control or monitor media content. No person can be allowed to use our courts for the purpose of regulating entertainment to conform to their notions.
The 13th century Persian poet Jalaluddin Rumi beautifully stated: “To be joyous is to be grateful to the Maker.” Coming from a Sufi this enlightens the soul. Let us resist attempts at stifling entertainment, as ultimately we will kill stimulus for progress and the free flow of ideas.
Published in The Express Tribune, July 18th, 2017.
Saadat Hasan Manto is famously remembered for saying, in defence of Thanda Gosht: “My stories are for healthy people, normal beings, not for minds who dig up carnal meanings in innocent and pure things.” Manto shunned hypocrisy, daring to show society its reflection in the mirror.
There are some who believe that entertainment of any kind is evil and must be stopped. To them, any kind of enjoyment is a sin: films, dramas and shows which show men and women together are pornographic and songs are the work of the devil. These people do not want our media to highlight social evils because that would allegedly destroy society’s ‘morals’. They would have us believe that in Pakistan, people are not murdered for greed, women are not slaughtered in the name of ‘honour’, children are not abused, judges do not make illegal appointments, sitting prime ministers are not accused of corruption and everything is blissful.
For them, revealing reality will instigate people towards nefarious activities. These ‘moral police’ think they have a right to control what people see and hear. They believe the public is too foolish and naïve to know what is good for them. The worst example of censorship is that of Ziaul Haq, who had the gun to enforce his will, destroying our culture and ability to tolerate.
In the age of internet, such fanatics do not have the authority or mandate to impose their will on Pakistan’s entertainment world, but their desire to do so remains. The only way they can succeed is to hide behind the concept of ‘obscenity’. This is what happened to Manto. Those who issued fatwas against him could not refute the truth of his stories. The only way to silence him was to try to censor his books.
It is by labelling almost everything immoral that they want to bring literature, drama, cinema and even social media under censorship. Entertainment exists simply for the sake of entertainment — something to be enjoyed, a source of laughter, a reason to cry and an escape from the harsh realities of life. Everyone desires to be entranced by the beautiful melodies of Noor Jehan and Mehdi Hassan. Art is universal and belongs to the whole of mankind.
This is not to say that anything and everything can be projected on television and cinema. Entertainment does not mean freedom to be obscene. There must be a balance. Certain things are unacceptable under the garb of entertainment: for instance, sexually explicit material or pornography.
Even Articles 19 and 19A of the constitution, which guarantee all citizens of Pakistan the fundamental rights to freedom of expression and access to information, subject these rights to reasonable restrictions imposed by law. In a deeply conservative society like Pakistan, the challenge, in balancing these rights and limitations, becomes all the more difficult but not impossible. How is society to undertake this balancing act?
Firstly, no one group of people can interpret morality in their own perverse way, imposing it on the rest. Interpretation of terms such as ‘indecency’ varies drastically among groups. As society evolves, it advances through various forms of art: what may be obscene today may not be tomorrow. What is offensive is subjective: what is obscene is even more subjective. Some people would say singing or dancing on television is immoral. Others would say that even discussion on women’s health issues is indecent.
Ultimately, what restrictions are reasonable is to be decided by the people, not by any particular group. It is the legislature alone, not the executive or judiciary nor any section of the people, which can determine what can or cannot be seen. This is why Article 19 specifies that reasonable restrictions can only be imposed by law. Even parliament, while enacting such laws, must ensure that the restrictions on entertainment are reasonable and proportionate to the significance of the legitimate objective.
Secondly, in order to avoid censorship it is the duty of the media to determine what content should be broadcast. It is only when self-regulation fails that a regulatory authority can take action on a case-by-case basis.
In Pakistan, parliament has designated the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Pemra) as the sole regulatory authority to monitor media content. Pemra and the Pakistan Broadcasters Association have agreed on a Code of Conduct 2015. These regulations provide the correct balance. To ensure nothing ‘obscene’ is broadcast, media content is monitored by in-house monitoring committees of the respective channels, leaving enough leeway for channels to produce entertainment according to the wishes of the people. As a watchdog, but not a censor, it is Pemra’s mandate to examine public complaints on a case-by-case basis, taking action accordingly.
For 13 months since passing of this code, 762,120 hours of transmission have been broadcast by TV channels and only three times have fines been imposed by Pemra, clearly demonstrating that Pakistani media has acted responsibly in this balancing act.
Unfortunately it appears that Pemra, contrary to the law, has begun to issue dictatorial prohibitions that remind one of Zia’s censorship era, such as, how women are to dress and not to air programmes in which couples are in ‘close proximity’. Pemra wants to impose Saudi-style vigilante control, but Pakistan is different and this cannot be tolerated here.
Pemra’s recent directions may be a result of the case which has come up before the Islamabad High Court in which the concept of ‘entertainment in Pakistan’ has been challenged. Without commenting on the case’s merits, I ask the question: what is the role of the court in regulating entertainment? The courts are protectors of the constitution and defenders of the right of freedom of expression and, in a democracy, have no right to control or monitor media content. No person can be allowed to use our courts for the purpose of regulating entertainment to conform to their notions.
The 13th century Persian poet Jalaluddin Rumi beautifully stated: “To be joyous is to be grateful to the Maker.” Coming from a Sufi this enlightens the soul. Let us resist attempts at stifling entertainment, as ultimately we will kill stimulus for progress and the free flow of ideas.
Published in The Express Tribune, July 18th, 2017.