Justice (retd) Wajihuddin Ahmed of the Supreme Court, who has recently joined the Pakistan Tehrik-i-Insaf, has got together with an ex-Ameer of the Jamaat-e-Islami, Qazi Hussain Ahmad, and complained to the Supreme Court about obscenity on TV channels. This has caused Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry to deliver an instant obiter dictum: “TV channels are spreading vulgarity and Pemra is doing nothing to prevent it”.
Pemra, of course, is the electronic media regulatory authority, whose acting chief was on hand and suffered the rebuke patiently, requesting the Court to give him a month in which to report the quality and quantum of vulgarity on TV channels. He apparently wanted to do some research, maybe also look into an agreed definition of vulgarity. But the Court denied him this and instead ruled that it is “not yet forming a commission”, but only granting a week’s time to Pemra.
The Chief Justice said he had watched some offensive programmes and added that “one finds it difficult to watch them with family”. To strengthen his argument, he enlisted the month of Ramazan, saying that “such programmes should be avoided during iftar”.
Pemra was asked to rate the programmes so that people may decide beforehand whether to watch the programmes or not. This is where the rub is: what is vulgar and who is saying whether something is or not vulgar? (The biggest decider is the right to switch the television off.) The Pemra acting boss fell back on the old routine saying: “Indian channels were banned in Pakistan to restrain broadcast of any improper programmes and Pakistani channels will now be screened for any such programmes”. Then he dropped a bombshell: laws related to regularity of the programmes were not well-defined and that vulgarity was relative: “Something which is vulgar to the complainants might not be vulgar to you and me”.
The Chief Justice then asked Pemra to show the Court the record of the offending programmes including “TV shows which were aired solely for the purpose of maligning the judiciary”. On this, the attorney general added his own bit: “the TV shows also run parodies of politicians and leaders”. Justice Chaudhry’s rejoinder was interesting: “such programmes are in good humour; such programmes are enjoyed”.
We are revisiting the situation that arose in September 2003 after a survey revealed that religious parties had different levels of reservations about ‘vulgarity’. One leader accused the government of double standards because Western fahashi (obscenity) was acceptable while Indian fahashi was not. After Indian movies were banned on the cables, all big cities of Pakistan switched to satellite TV and bought dish antennae. Those who watch movies will also go on record against entertainment. People in our part of the world have a problem with entertainment because religion gets involved. No one accepts the argument that entertainment works as a safety valve that lets off the steam built up by ideological oppression.
The Taliban began by blowing up cinemas and video shops before they latched onto girls’ schools as what they perceived as obscenity. Will the Court now offer us a mithridatic cure of the cruelty of the Taliban? The Taliban go further than that: they attack culture as a source of entertainment.
Swat as a microcosm of their rule showed us what we can do when looking critically at vulgarity. Already some cable unions are blocking the BBC and some other foreign channels airing programmes critical of Pakistan’s policies. Now they might chop off the bough they are perched on by cutting entertainment that Justice (retd) Wajihuddin and Qazi Hussain Ahmad think is vulgar.
Will the Court take a hardline view and gag the TV channels, shutting out some tentative criticism of ‘judicial activism’ within a generally intensely pro-judiciary community of TV anchors? Such action taken in the past had failed because entertainment was then driven underground with lethal effect.
Published in The Express Tribune, August 13th, 2012.
COMMENTS (12)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
Wow Great move by these people. I didn't expected these kinds of comments from Pakistanis but I forgot that pakistan only progressed in vulgarity.
wow after reading comments i got that people love hugging, kissing, item numbers and all short dresses on tv... Shame on you people who critisize only positive and religious things,
The most vulgar is releasing all the terrorists and indulging in politics from the bench. It is vulgar to perpetuate Gen Zia and JI's extreme ideology that has brought Pakistan to this low point in its history. The worst vulgarity is not to accept and respect the verdict of electorate and subvert their votes. At times it is impossible to differentiate between Gen Zia and PCO Choudhry on the bench. Everybody knows full well how Gen Zia landed in dustbin of history and even his name has been deleted from the official history of Pakistan.
TV programs are vulgar because they talk about the highhandedness of PCO SC judges. They are vulgar because they sometimes talk about the corruption going on from the official residence of CJ for years. They are vulgar because some demand the hearing of cases that the judges are sitting for decades without hearing. They are vulgar because they allow freedom of speech against the political judiciary and talks about the high treason and PCO judges, and the list goes on and on. The reason TV has dozens of channels is you can pick and choose what you want to watch. Nothing is imposed on you and for free. You buy and choose the channels. If you have kids you watch cartoons and family programs when they are around. If you are grown up and alone it is up to you whatever you like in the privacy of your own home in front of your own TV. How can judges put a gag order in other’s home? Let us grow up and get real as if this is the main problem for Pakistan.
Chief Justice should not be wasting his time by watching TV.
The editorialist has grossly misrepresented the Chief Justice direction to PEMRA by implying that he had ordered it to "cut[.] entertainment that Justice (retd) Wajihuddin and Qazi Hussain Ahmad think is vulgar." That is not what the Chief Justice has directed. His direction is most reasonable: enforce Pakistan's law on this issue. And the law here, as almost everywhere else in the world, says that 'commonly accepted' standards of the people will be applied in judging what is vulgar and what is not.
Those standards we know are not the same as those held dear by Qazi Hussain. May be, they do not match Justice Wajih's or even the Chief Justice's standards. But, certainly, they are also not the same as the average standards of the readers of this most exclusive of our English language papers. Most people generally follow the middle course.
The standards of the ordinary people can be, and should be, ascertained. And they are the ones that deserve to be applied. Fringe minorities on either side of spectrum - liberal or puritanical - should not be allowed to hold this country's TV screen hostage. We are presently seeing the raj of the former elite, while a few decades back it was the latter. That is what the Chief had decreed against. He has not departed from the law in so doing.
Are you kidding me? What "vulgarity" does any Pakistani TV show? In hamsafar we all remember sharam Khirad.
@Yasir: Your standards of what constitutes vulgarity are possibly quite different from mine. I consider overzealous religious evangelist programs to be vulgar, as well as as playing songs during news broadcasts. Should, now, the programming be modified to cater to my whims and sensibilities?
No excuse for vulgarity. From both deotologiCAL AND TELEOLOGICAL perspectives, what TV show is vulgarity. it has to be stopped.
“TV shows which were aired solely for the purpose of maligning the judiciary” the cj said, sums up the actual issue. This is not about vulgarity by an attempt to save himself. The Arsalan case is the cause of nightmares for these judges and the trail is leading to the thief justice.