FOR days, Pakistanis watched in a state of suspended disbelief as the government and cable operators locked horns over the ban on Indian channels. Even as the two sides wrangled bitterly, their one-upmanship was couched in calculated appeals to nationalist sentiments.

The Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) argued forcefully that it was acting in the best national interest by reinforcing a ban on vulgar Indian channels. Cable operators, initially nonplussed by the contradictory behaviour of a government ostensibly engaged in a normalization process with its eastern neighbour, fought back by saying they had always supported the official ban on Indian channels and were only demanding “international entertainment channels”.

Whether PEMRA’s original motivation was financial or ideological is a moot point. In the tussle that ensued, an otherwise important debate about the legitimate need for freeing electronic media was once again drowned in a sea of ideological righteousness. Also sunk were claims by the government that it was committed to a free flow of information. Wholly frivolous in itself, the ban has focused renewed attention on the deeply controversial parameters of our cultural and social mores.

Moral policing is nothing new in an authoritarian state steeped in the tradition of intellectual and literary inquisition. But where does it all end? Through frequent notifications, for instance, PEMRA has been instructing cable operators to block out this or that foreign channel because of its ‘obscenity’. Silent on the question of the suffocating state control over Pakistan Television and Radio, the arbitrary Ordinance (and rules) that govern its conduct empower PEMRA to simply prohibit broadcasts that are supposedly against ‘the ideology of Pakistan’ or ‘endanger national security’.

These euphemisms for draconian censorship practically preclude independent news and analysis. Programmes against ‘good taste or decency’ are also proscribed. Just whose standard of decency, no one knows. And who is to decide? Appointed PEMRA bureaucrats now acting as guardians of our social morality.

While the recent cabinet decision to allow more private media channels is welcome, it is hard not to be cynical. PEMRA can mandate private broadcasters to telecast programmes in the “public interest”. Unless Pakistan was Alice’s Wonderland, could there be a cruder device to recruit them for state propaganda? Ironically, the government doesn’t really need to commission these channels. Though better presented and covering a wider array of issues, news bulletins on private channels rarely go beyond the received wisdom on national security issues.

Often, they mirror state propaganda on Kashmir. While there is much to write home about, ideological overloading is also commonplace in prime time programming with self-proclaimed Islamic jurists evoking divine authority to settle contentions public issues. Each time, though, they open a new can of worms that adds to our unresolved cultural and ideological confusion.

Pakistan is destined to become another Madina, proclaimed retired General Hameed Gul in unison with a talk show host recently, drowning out any hope that a reasoned debate on the origins of Pakistan was possible. Current affairs experts are mostly right-wing generals, retired diplomats or pro-military intellectuals. As they generously dismiss the establishment’s foreign and domestic blunders as minor miscalculations, any potential debate on the urgent need to rethink or re-evaluate flawed state policies is also conveniently swept under the carpet.

Mindless anti-India propaganda spewed through scores of officially sponsored videos is relayed endlessly. Sung by the country’s most popular rock stars, the Pakistan army’s souped up bravado is mixed with state-of-the-art special effects to drive home the bestiality of the enemy who kills indiscriminately. Even if the excuse is that the Indians do it too, this hyper nationalism remains at odds with Islamabad’s declared intent of normalizing relations with India. Equally mystifying are attempts by some military-run entities to make up for their gross inefficiency through appeals to the people’s patriotic instincts.

My favourite is a dramatic rendition extolling the war-like readiness of Wapda. With national flags fluttering and a stern, uniformed Gen Musharraf saluting in the background, the song spins the fiction that Wapda is about to revolutionize our lives. Who foots the bill for all this crude propaganda? The Pakistani taxpayer, of course.

According to Antonio Gramsci, the state’s hegemony rests not only on material and coercive power but also on a measure of “consent, cooperation and collaboration” that comes from cultural and ideological support of civil society. In Pakistan, civil society has been manipulated and coerced to extract this cultural and ideological compliance for reasons of state. The unsurprising result has been the subservience of all other priorities of civil life to the narrow national security concerns of an “Islamic” state pitched against a “Hindu” India.

In adhering to the notions of an ambiguous religious ideology, the country’s civil-military elite has projected Islam as the primary basis for state legitimacy. In the process, they have played with religion to accommodate and manipulate the religious lobby. The mullahs reaction, by and large, has been ever more boldly and violently to push their demands while refusing in most cases to abide by the rule of law. Just who is using whom has not always been clear, however. Compare the MMA’s crusade against cable TV in the NWFP and the state’s resort to regulatory mechanisms to curb what it deems immoral. A right-wing establishment, naturally, sits pretty at the table with the mullas.

Governments around the world often concern themselves with manufacturing consent to protect themselves against the enemies of the state. As the Nazi spin-doctor Joseph Goebels had famously remarked: a lie told often enough ultimately becomes the truth. In Pakistan, principal forms of socialisation (history textbooks, state-run electronic media) are thus infused with an undying sense of militaristic nationalism.

Despite all that, and more, why is it that over 90 per cent of cable TV viewers still demand Indian channels? Simple answer: They are not the dimwits the establishment considers them to be. Pakistanis can well differentiate between harmful propaganda and harmless entertainment. There is much that is wrong with Indian TV channels, and ours for that matter.

But that is no excuse for PEMRA or any other government agency to resort to tactics of thought control. The unbelievable condescension with which some PEMRA officials have been publicly speaking for the “millions of illiterate and impressionable Pakistanis”, who are not yet ready to make “free choices”, is an insult to the dignity of the whole nation.

Informed observers say memories of the aggressive media blitzkrieg by private Indian channels during the Kargil conflict was still fresh in Islamabad’s corridors of power when the Indians slapped a ban on PTV in early 2002. Though localized and short-lived, that ban only provided the pretext for a decision the Pakistani establishment would have liked to make anyway.

For some, the government’s plea of “stabilizing” Pakistani private channels and continuing the ban on Indian channels, therefore, smacks of foul play. Don’t blame these cynics for casting aspersions on the government’s oft-repeated desire for regional peace. From the way they conduct themselves in the 21st century, the abiding motto of Pakistan’s ruling elite could well be: Ignorance is strength.

IT is a popular belief in the West, owing to their deficient knowledge of the Quran and the Traditions of the Prophet (Peace be upon him) that Islam supports values and structures that are incompatible with the principles of human rights. The fact is that Islam established the sanctity of human rights and advocated their promotion and enforcement, about fourteen hundred years before the United Nations declared them in the form of Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

If we use human rights as a yardstick to evaluate civilizations, a study of history will reveal that the world was not very civilized before the advent of Islam. Though there were great civilizations before Islam, they were held high in esteem chiefly due to their contributions to the fields of arts and sciences. None did any thing to practise human rights in a permanent manner. Advances in human rights, if there were any, derived their legality from the particular ruler or government then in place, and the successor did not consider it necessary to carry on the practice.

It may be mentioned that it was in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries that the western political thinkers and jurists educated the masses about the notions of civil liberties and fundamental rights. This awareness prompted the people to strive for their rights, resulting in a bitter series of tussles between the rulers and the subjects. Privileges were stubbornly withheld by the rulers, whereas, the subjects fought vehemently for them. Revolutions took place, and with each revolution the people won a new concession. In this way, through the ordeal of bloodshed and struggle, a growing body of rights developed.

Islam, on the contrary, took a significantly different course. First of all, as God had Himself conferred them, the people did not have to violently take these rights from some ruler. Secondly, being ordained by God, human rights cannot be abolished or abrogated by any man or group of men. Every Muslim ruler or government must recognise and enforce them, as they are part and parcel of the Islamic faith. If one fails to do so, or denies them, or practically violates them while paying lip service to them, the verdict of the Quran in such a case is clear and unequivocal: “...And whoever judges not by what Allah has revealed, those are the disbelievers.” (5:44) “...And whoever judges not by what Allah has revealed, those are the transgressors.” (5:47)

Some of the fundamental rights that Islam declares all human beings to possess are:

Right to life: The Quran upholds the sanctity of human life and accords full protection to it. All forms of manslaughter are regarded as heinous crimes. It is said in the Quran: “... Whoever kills a person, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he had killed all humanity...” (5:32), “...And kill not the soul which Allah has made sacred except in the course of justice...” (6:152) “And kill not your children for fear of poverty — We provide for them and for you. Surely the killing of them is a great sin.” (17:31) “And kill not the soul which Allah has forbidden except for a just cause. And whoever is slain unjustly, We have indeed given to his heir authority — but let him not exceed the limit in slaying...” (17:33)

Right to equality: Islam disregards discrimination between persons on the basis of colour, race, nationality, nobility of birth, wealth, political status, gender, etc. Superiority of a man is determined only on the basis of piety, righteousness, and moral excellence. In his Farewell Sermon, the Prophet declared: “Righteous actions are the only mark of distinction and not wealth, birth, or status in life.”

Similarly, the Quran proclaims: “O mankind, We have created you from a male and a female, and made you into tribes and families that you may know each other. Surely the noblest of you with Allah is the (one who is the) most righteous of you. Surely Allah is Knowing, Aware.” (49:13)

Right to justice: Immense stress has been laid by the Quran on the right to seek justice and the duty to perform justice: “... When you judge between people, you judge with justice...” (4:58) “O you who believe, be maintainers of justice...” (4:135) “O you who believe ...let not hatred of a people incite you not to act equitably. Be just; that is nearer to observance of duty...” (5:8) “...And if thou judge, judge between them with equity. Surely Allah loves the equitable.” (5:42) “Say: My Lord enjoins justice...” (7:29) “Surely Allah enjoins justice and the doing of good...” (16:90)

Right to respect: Islam declares that each person, irrespective of his faith, race, gender, or wealth, is worthy of respect. The right to honour and self-respect is inviolable. The Quran says: “Those who love that scandal should circulate respecting those who believe, for them in a grievous chastisement in this world and the Hereafter...” (24:19) “And those who malign believing men and believing women undeservedly, they bear the guilt of slander and manifest sin.” (33:58) “O you who believe, let not a folk deride a folk, perchance they may be better than they (are); nor let women (deride) women, perchance they may be better than they (are); neither defame one another, nor insult one another by nick names. Bad is the name of lewdness after faith... Neither backbite one another...” (49:11, 12)

Right to privacy: An individual’s right to domestic and personal privacy has been clearly recognised by the Quran: “O you who believe, enter not houses other than your own houses, until you have asked permission... This is better for you that you may be mindful.” (24:27) “O you who believe, avoid most of suspicion...and spy not...” (49:12)

Right to freedom of religion: In an Islamic state every citizen is free to profess and practice any religion that he has adopted. Individuals and government have been strictly forbidden from interfering in the religious affairs of non-Muslim citizens. It is said in the Quran: “There is no compulsion in religion...” (2:256) “And if Allah had pleased, they would not have set up others (with Him). And We have not appointed thee a keeper over them, and thou art not placed in charge of them. And abuse not those whom they call upon besides Allah...” (6:108, 109)

“And if thy Lord had pleased, all those who are in the earth would have believed, all of them. Wilt thou then force men till they are believers?” (10:99) “And say: the truth is from your Lord; so let him who please believe, and let him who please disbelieve...” (18:29) “Say (O Prophet): O disbelievers, I serve not that which you serve, nor do you serve whom I worship...Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion.” (109:1-6)

Right to education: The pursuit of knowledge is considered a task of great importance in Islam. It is pointed out in the Quran: “...Say (unto them, O Muhammad): Are those who know equal with those who know not? But only men of understanding will pay heed.” (39:9)

Islam has conferred and acknowledged other fundamental rights also. Their details and illustrations can be seen in the Quran, the Traditions, and the teachings of the Pious Caliphs and other Muslim Jurists.

THE resonance of last year’s communal frenzy, which took a heavy toll of life in the Indian state of Gujarat refuses to die down. On Tuesday, the Muslims of the state observed strike to protest against the continuing harassment of the members of their community by the police. Five Muslims have been taken into custody for their alleged attack on a Hindu temple in Gujarat in September last year.

The families of the arrested persons maintain that the five have been falsely implicated. The wife of one of them has complained that her husband has been in custody since August 9 and she has been warned by the police that she should not talk to anybody or hire a lawyer or else her husband would be implicated on charges which could keep him behind the bars for more than 20 years. Another person is being detained on the charge that he had written a letter in Persian to one of the “militants” responsible for the attack on the temple.”

This is a perfectly subcontinental scenario. It is not uncommon, unfortunately on both sides of the border, to take persons into custody on what seem to be ridiculous charges and then threaten their families against taking up the matter with the “higher authorities.” In the case of the five persons arrested in Gujarat, the charges appear to be ridiculously absurd. It is only too well known that the Muslims in Gujarat have been living in dire fear of their lives since last year’s riots. Hundreds of Muslims and their families continue to live in refugee camps intimated and harassed by those in authority.

What actually triggered last year’s communal riots in Gujarat is not quite clear till today. The rioting continued for several days and at least 2,000 Muslims lost their lives. Hundreds of them whose homes were attacked, set on fire or looted continue to live in refugee camps or have migrated from Gujarat. The police maintained an attitude of reprisal towards the Muslims. Many of them have been arrested for their alleged involvement in the Godhra incident and charged under the notorious Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) which gives the police arbitrary powers.

What was a matter of great concern to the Muslims of Gujarat was the re-election of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Narendra Modi as chief minister of Gujarat. He was the chief minister at the time of the rampage. BJP and its allied parties often talk of the ‘Narendra Modi model’ in anticipation of the general elections in India scheduled to be held next year. It is generally believed that the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance headed by Vajpayee has lately shed some of its popularity. All the same a nation-wide poll conducted by the weekly India Today in collaboration with two other equally prestigious organizations has indicated that in next year’s national elections, the BJP is again expected to emerge as the largest single party, even if it does not secure the same number (or more) seats as it holds in Lok Sabha today. The BJP may then in alliance with some other like-minded parties stay in power for another term. Significantly, Pravin Togadia, general secretary of the militant Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), an ally of BJP, has gone on record to say that he feels certain that “Hindutva is an unstoppable torrent.”

This should be an occasion for Pakistan to reflect on the state of relations with India. It is unfortunate that Hindu-Muslim relations in India which frequently adversely affect the Muslims have their fallout on India’s attitude towards Pakistan. The two bomb blasts in Mumbai which are perceived by BJP leaders as contrived by militant Muslims may have led the Indian negotiating team which was at the time in Islamabad discussing the question of overflights TO return home without any tangible outcome of the talks.

With the prospect of the BJP-led NDA and Vajpayee staying in power in New Delhi for another term, the chances are that the factors which have gone into the making of India-Pakistan relations will remain unchanged. On the whole Pakistan has been able to adjust itself to the governance-style of Vajpayee. A realistic view of the state of India-Pakistan relations suggests that Pakistan would not come up against any insurmountable hurdles.

On the positive side it is to be said that the frequency and base of the people-to-people contacts between the two countries have significantly expanded. A delegation of Pakistani members of parliament carried out an extensive tour of India about two months ago and came back with the distinct impression that the Indians of all classes yearn for a tension-free relationship with Pakistan. Two delegations of Indian MPs and media persons have visited Pakistan in the recent weeks and returned home with a similar feeling.

For the first time, large groups of trade union workers and office-bearers representing both India and Pakistan have attended a South Asian Labour for Peace Conference in Karachi. By all accounts the conference was a great success and especially stressed the need for peace and demilitarization of the region which really means peace and defusion of tensions between India and Pakistan.

However, despite a call for the resumption of bilateral talks aimed at normalization of relations given by the Indian prime minister four months ago and warmly responded to by the Pakistani side, the situation in the subcontinent continues to be a matter of concern. The chances of a purposeful high-level meeting between the officials of the two countries do not seem bright and the initiative for normalization taken by the two sides after Mr Atal Behari Vajpayee’s call for peace have been stalemated. Even a routine matter like the resumption of air links between the two countries has stymied after an initial official-level meeting. At present there are no air or rail links between Islamabad and New Delhi. There is only a three-times-a-week bus service between Lahore and Delhi.

The declaration issued by the Labour Peace Conference inter alia calls upon India and Pakistan to take steps aimed at reducing defence budgets and the chances of armed conflicts. It also calls for denuclearization of the region and, rather ambitiously, for the free movement of labour across the borders in the region and for the setting up of a regional system of immigrant labour and work permits.

The recommendations, though worthwhile do not appear to have much chance of being accepted by India or Pakistan in view of the present state of their bilateral relations. Much more purposeful Saarc initiatives for the progress and development of the countries of the region, such as the South Asia Free Trade Agreement (SAFTA), have yet to receive a positive response where India and Pakistan are concerned.

The main hurdle in the way for a positive outcome of the recommendations of Track-II contacts seems to be the disinclination of the governments of India and Pakistan to give them serious consideration. The presence of pressure groups based on public opinion is crucial to the official acceptability of the recommendations of Track-II get-togethers. The media particularly can play a key role in building public opinion.