Daily Times

It is not every day that Pakistan gets a chance to rejoice. It is definitely not every day when Pakistan makes the news for something noteworthy. Last week, Samina Baig became the first Pakistani woman to reach the top of Mount Everest. Also last week, Zahra Shahid Hussain, the senior vice-president of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI) was shot dead in front of her home in Karachi, the night before the re-elections. Unfortunately, target killings are something that Pakistan consistently makes the news for.

The PTI chief, Imran Khan has blamed Altaf Hussain, the absentee chief of the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) for the murder pursuant to his volatile public address to his followers. There had been protests before Zahra’s killing against Hussain’s incendiary speech both in Pakistan and in England. Protesters filed complaints with the Metropolitan Police, London, and rallied in front of 10 Downing Street, the abode of Britain’s Prime Minister. Adam Thompson, the British High Commissioner to Pakistan, while acknowledging that propagating hatred and violence is an offence punishable under British law, confirmed that the Metropolitan Police were investigating the complaints received. Thompson, however, raised an extremely valid point: Pakistan’s government should take notice of Hussain’s speech.

One does wonder about, but not much, the deliberate inaction and inability of Pakistan’s government to rise to the occasion and address the issue head on. The facts that need to be considered, hypothetically speaking, are: a person makes a speech and issues thinly veiled threats to the people of Pakistan, promising to unleash his supporters, screams secession of part of the country, abuses the media and all dissenters. The question that begs consideration is: who is this person? Is he a Pakistani citizen or a British national or a dual nationality holder? If he is a Pakistani citizen he is subject to state law, and if he is a British national, why is he allowed to televise controversial content on the streets of Pakistan? If he is a dual nationality holder, is he still a Pakistani citizen and subject to Pakistan’s law? A Pakistani citizen is bound by the constitution to be loyal to the state, as Article five states: “Loyalty to the State is the basic duty of every citizen and obedience to the Constitution and law is the [inviolable] obligation of every citizen wherever he may be and of every other person for the time being within Pakistan.” The constitution guarantees Freedom of Association and states that “every citizen, not being in the service of Pakistan, shall have the right to form or be a member of a political party, subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interest of the sovereignty or integrity of Pakistan and such law shall provide that where the Federal Government declares that any political party has been formed or is operating in a manner prejudicial to the sovereignty or integrity of Pakistan, the Federal Government shall, within fifteen days of such declaration, refer the matter to the Supreme Court whose decision on such reference shall be final.” But then where is the action by the state when Pakistan’s sovereignty and public order is prejudiced and threatened? Is the state complicit in allowing such blatant violations of the constitution? Some may argue that the very same constitution also guarantees freedom of speech and expression. It may come as news to these some that there is no unbridled right of freedom of speech: “Every citizen shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression, and there shall be freedom of the press, subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interest of the glory of Islam or the integrity, security or defence of Pakistan or any part thereof, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, [commission of] or incitement to an offence.” So again where is the state when a person sitting thousands of miles away is allowed to televise his addresses to the ordinary citizens of Pakistan and by his words and expressions has the capability of inciting them to an offence? The footage aired by the national media that showed the public, or were they members of a political party, attack office bearers; following such words, they assaulted their own leaders. Just imagine how else they can be unleashed, hypothetically speaking of course!

The Pakistan Penal Code makes promoting and inciting disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever an offence whether done through any “words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations.” The law extends to any such act that is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony on the above grounds, and which disturbs or is likely to disturb public tranquillity. Any person who “organises, or incites any other person to organise, and exercise, movement, drill or other similar activity intending that the participants in any such activity shall use or be trained to use criminal force or violence or knowing it to be likely that the participants in any such activity will use or be trained to use criminal force or violence or participates, or incites any other person to participate, in any such activity intending to use or be trained to use criminal force or violence or knowing it to be likely that the participants in any such activity will use or be trained, to use criminal force or violence…cause or is likely to cause fear or alarm or a feeling of insecurity amongst members of such religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community” is an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term that may extend to five years and with fine. But then maybe those seated in the power corridors have never read the law!

And then there is the highly (in)efficient PEMRA (Pakistan’s Electronic Media Regulatory Authority), whose basic function is to act as a watchdog and make sure that nothing is televised that violates the constitution and encourages violence, terrorism, hatred and so on. So again, what has PEMRA done about the controversial televised content? Why does the media eagerly televise these speeches instead of letting the political party manage the dissemination, and yet fails to address the violent and illegal content fully; unless the media too, like the government, is working under pressure?

I remember a Karachi that was safe, where I used to go as a child and run around on the beach and have falooda in Bohri Bazaar. Never did it occur to me that years later this very ‘alive’ city would become notorious, not for its falooda but ‘bori-band’ corpses (sack enclosed). No one would be safe…no one. Living in Karachi for a large majority of people is akin to climbing Everest every single day of their lives. Just like the death zone of the world’s highest mountain poses significant challenges to climbers, Karachi has become a ‘death zone’ due to a constant rule of terror that has negated every conceivable fundamental right of its citizens. Thompson is right; it is the duty of the state to take action. Regardless of what Britain does, the people of Pakistan need to demonstrate true grit, to persuade the government into showing its loyalty to the constitution and obedience to the law…the only way of conquering Everest.

The writer is an advocate of the High Court