A ban is ostensibly put in place in the interests of ‘public’. In Pakistan, however, bans have often been criticised for serving the agendas and ideologies of whosoever is at the helm of affairs at a particular point in time. Films and books, writers and artists have all been proscribed at various points in time, section 144 has been imposed for innumerable times, prohibiting public meetings — there was even an attempt some years ago to ban the use of seemingly innocuous words in text messages … such as ‘hobo’ and ‘glazed donut’. Similarly, there have been many bans against new technologies and their usages.

Many of these bans have inspired instant popular rage. The longstanding ban on YouTube, for instance, has recently inspired a campaign titled KholoBC — BC being the abbreviation of Urdu words for leave the ban. This perhaps reflects the frustration that the Pakistanis feel towards bans in general, having been subjected to a wide variety of them in the country’s 67-year-long history.

Many of these bans have also had adverse impacts as was predicted by their critics. For the Herald’s upcoming issue, a number of writers, commentators and intellectuals sound off on the following question:

Which ban imposed in Pakistan has had the most pernicious effects?

Dawn.com invites its readers to join the conversation by answering the question above. Selected comments will be published in the Herald’s May 2014 issue.