When culture becomes coercion

An episode in circulation on social media a few days ago involving the alleged photoshopping of photographs of a renowned female academician - and later attacks on her dress, appearance and personality in the name of Pashtun culture and values - should be shocking for those who believe in tolerance and freedom within decent limits.

What may apparently appear to be yet another ugly social media controversy in fact reflects a deeper malaise from which a section of our society suffers: the myopic mindset of individuals who try to act as self-appointed guardians of virtue and assume the right to dictate how others should dress, speak, appear and live.

The issue becomes even more dangerous when criticism turns into intimidation. Such remarks of a defamatory nature, coupled with threats of dire consequences, cross all limits. This can expose a woman to physical violence, thus curbing her liberty.

The most tragic part of this series of acts was the apparent psychological pressure brought upon the academician. Coerced psychologically, she later appeared on camera wearing a chadar in a manner seemingly different from her usual public persona while inviting students to seek admission to her institution.

Wearing or not wearing a chadar or burqa is not the issue; it is a personal choice. The real question is whether that choice was genuinely hers. A chadar worn because of fear or threats is a symbol of coercion. No one can be given the authority to act as a moral police officer to impose their will on others regarding what to wear or not to wear. Of course, one is expected to dress decently and with due decorum.

Similarly, no one has a licence to define what a culture is. Customs, traditions, and ways of life never remain constant. They keep changing with changes in the mode of production. A society frozen in time, or a person with moribund ideas, will never progress.

In this context, the greatest risk is if intimidation of this kind goes unchecked, as it creates a social space for extremist thinking. The pretext may change - at times religious, and at times cultural or moral - but the underlying impulse remains the same: "one individual claiming authority over the lawful choices of another and threatening force when conformity is refused."

This is one of the paths that may lead to violent extremism. Violence does not necessarily begin with the first physical attack. It is a process marked by vilification, dehumanisation, character assassination, social isolation and the normalisation of threats. If this goes unchecked as mere social media rhetoric, it risks encouraging those who believe that moral disagreement gives them the right to punish others.

This is where the role of the state becomes important.

Facebook, X, TikTok and other social media platforms frequently carry malicious, libelous and threatening content. With the mandate given to the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA), it was expected that such content would be curbed and offenders brought to justice.

Yet, there is a growing perception that the agency responsible for combating cybercrime swings into action only when political figures or human rights activists target the government, while threatening and abusive conduct of other kinds does not always attract the same visible urgency. Whether this perception is entirely justified or not, it damages public confidence.

A threat in any form must be investigated. Selective enforcement weakens the rule of law and encourages those who believe they enjoy social or ideological immunity.

The episode also exposes the hypocrisy and multiple masks worn by many. It recalls Raja Anwar's Jhootay Roop Kay Darshan, a literary work famous for penetrating outward appearances and unearthing the contradictions between the faces people present to the world and the realities beneath them.

Beyond this, the most important underlying issue is that of "individual liberty".

John Stuart Mill, in his essay On Liberty, was concerned not merely with oppression by governments but also with what he termed "social tyranny" and the "despotism of custom". According to him, society itself can impose its own mandates and intrude deeply into the personal lives of individuals.

Mill did not support unlimited freedom. He argued that freedom ends where it causes harm to others. His widely recognised "harm principle" establishes precisely this boundary. His justification for coercive power was that it can only be exercised over an individual to prevent harm to others, not because society disapproves of that individual's personal choices.

This test can be applied directly to the aforementioned case.

To what extent can the wearing of a lawful style of dress by an adult woman in her professional role cause harm to another citizen? Her dress may be to the liking or disliking of others. One may dislike her dress, and there may be criticism over it. Freedom of expression protects disagreement as well. But disagreement does not permit anyone to photoshop someone's photographs, humiliate her, threaten her, or intimidate her into changing her style.

A higher seat of learning, above all other institutions, should represent learning, creativity, innovation and freedom from fear. If even the head of a university can be psychologically traumatised into modifying her style because she fears what an emotionally charged individual might do, imagine the message received by young women entering that institution.

It sends a negative message that curbs intellectual pursuit and independent inquiry, both of which require an environment free from such societal policing. That is a message that could distort the image of the country.

Of course, our behaviours are shaped by our culture, which is to be respected. However, throwing tolerance to the wind, defining culture according to one's own thinking and imposing it on others against their free will amounts to coercion. Our liberty is rooted in law. Therefore, one's individual liberty cannot be surrendered to the loudest or most threatening voice on Facebook or other media.

The state must therefore treat credible online threats seriously and without political selectivity. Let us stand united against coercion to ensure individual liberty.

A free society does not require everyone to dress alike, think alike, or live alike. It requires something considerably more difficult: the willingness to allow others the same liberty that we claim for ourselves.