If there is one thing that has ensured the persistence of virulence between Pakistan and India it is the constant comparisons that are drawn between the two states. Most of it is wrapped in jingoistic clichés, and does not go beyond the mere regurgitation of narratives meant to demonise the other. However, those Pakistanis who pander to all this leave little room for introspection and their diatribes do nothing but add to the hostile sentiment. In such an environment it is extremely difficult to ascertain the shortcomings of Pakistan itself as all energies are focused on pointing fingers to forces outside the country. Moreover, it also restricts the space to draw meaningful comparisons between Pakistan and India, and to aspire to a higher standard for Pakistan in those areas where India is doing better. Unfortunately, if any such comparisons exist they are either mostly limited to the military circle, which naturally is centred around defence requirements, or the academia, which rarely comes to dominate the policy structures. Democracy is far from perfect in India as certain legacies of the colonial state, much like Pakistan, continue to persist there. But the one thing India is doing better than Pakistan is the greater freedom there is for the press to air alternate views. While there is a public culture in India to declare those who transgress certain loosely set boundaries of acceptable discourse anti-India or ‘anti-national’, but at the state level there is still a much higher tolerance for such views. For example, if the leader of the National Conference Omar Abdullah can openly say on national television that the Kashmiri sentiment of anger is legitimate, and not engineered by Pakistan, and India must find a political solution to the Kashmir conflict, that means that there is considerable space for alternate views in India. Moreover, if Indian media can show Pakistani flags in Indian-held Jammu and Kashmir and discuss the reasons behind it, then that is testament to the freedom of press that exists there. All of this is not to glamourise the state of affairs in India as the country does have its own fair share of problems, and there is a great deal of pandering to jingoistic sentiment in the Indian press. The only point that is being made is that in democratic countries the state must facilitate freedom of speech so that marginalised voices can be given space. Unfortunately, that space is continuously shrinking in Pakistan as the state is increasingly patrolling the flow of information in the country. Whether it is a dearth of information coming out of regions — certain areas of Balochistan and FATA — that are victim to unrest, or even arbitrary censoring of movies as innocuous as Happy Bhag Jayegi, it seems that the state’s appetite for dissenting voices and supposedly ‘unpalatable’ entertainment is becoming more and more miniscule. And this would have negative consequences for the country as this only fuels resentment and anger. While there is no doubt that hate speech and incitement of violence must be banned by the state, but that is where it should also limit the line to censor, ban, curb or prohibit. Pakistan needs to progress, and the only way this could be achievable is if there is freedom to discuss and debate varying viewpoints. Without the fear of being silenced. In varying degrees of suppression. *