There were no winners in the verbal spat between the MQM chief Altaf Hussain and the army leadership via the ISPR.

But Pemra’s belated intervention has ensured that the losses have multiplied.

By invoking a rule prohibiting the dissemination of hate speech in censuring TV news channels, the regulatory authority has perhaps unwittingly but very wrongly acted in a manner prejudicial to free speech and political speech in the country.

At least three points need to be made here. First, while Mr Hussain’s words were thoroughly deplorable and inexcusable, do they actually amount to hate speech? Hate speech implies some kind of incitement to violence against a community or group of people.

Read: Pemra perspective: Treacherous anchors, nudity and national interest

Does criticism — even vitriolic criticism — of state institutions amount to hate speech? The army leadership was clearly angered by Mr Hussain’s comments, as has Mr Hussain been angered by the recent, and at times farcical, attempts by the military to clamp down on the MQM.

Pemra’s role as a regulator is to keep the public interest paramount — not intervene on behalf of state institutions in a way that will have a chilling effect on the media.

Second, Pemra’s selective interest in applying the law — and then applying the law wrongly — needs to be explained. Why is it not permissible for a politician to criticise the military when politicians routinely attack each other in televised broadcasts?

Consider the routine tirades of PTI supremo Imran Khan against the PML-N, the ECP, a former chief justice of the Supreme Court and sundry other public figures accused of colluding to allegedly manipulate the May 2013 general election.

Also read: Pemra asks channels to exercise caution

Pemra has remained quiet through the most dramatic and direct of allegations by the PTI. Perhaps Pemra did want to act in some instances and was counselled not to by the PML-N government.

And the PTI’s right to untrammelled political speech was correctly respected by Pemra. But the point of double standards remains: politicians and civilian institutions are freely attacked, but criticism of military policies is still very much taboo.

That is not healthy for the state, for democracy and for the military itself. As arguably the most powerful institution in the country, the military shapes both domestic and external policies on many fronts. Most of the criticism directed at the military is precisely about its policy interventions.

Curbing criticism of the army is therefore tantamount to suppressing legitimate dissent.

Third, what are Pemra and the state doing about the presence of genuine hate speech — sectarian and pro-militant — in sections of the media and many parts of the country?

Curbing hate speech is an important pillar of the National Action Plan drawn up in December, but there has been as yet no meaningful attempt to implement the law — despite the fanciful statistics the interior ministry routinely produces on actions taken. Mr Hussain’s impolitic words were surely not the place to begin.

Published in Dawn, May 3rd, 2015

On a mobile phone? Get the Dawn Mobile App: Apple Store | Google Play