A few days ago, a group of Pakistani activists convened a meeting in London and we were discussing possible strategies to run a human rights campaign in Pakistan. The main concern of our discussion was to ensure safety and security of activists. As always, many of us were of the view that we need to be ‘smart’ and ‘efficient’ while working on ground. In other words, we didn’t want to name perpetrators, specifically the establishment. Although this defensive attitude seems a rational option, it also hints towards our own internalisation of fear which is central to Jeremy Bentham’s Panopticon. 18th-19th century philosopher, Jeremy Bentham, proposed the idea of Panopticon, a metaphor of surveillance. Bentham’s Panopticon is a prison designed in a circular form; each level contains prisoner cells. There is a long tower in the middle of building which could be seen from every cell whereas prisoners cannot talk and see in each other’s cells. The only thing that prisoners know that there is an inspector inside the tower who is monitoring them constantly. Inspector, who is invisible to prisoners, can see every cell and talk to every prisoner at any time. This whole mechanism, according to Bentham, of Panopticon creates ‘the illusion of constant surveillance’ among prisoners. As a result, prisoners tend to internalise jail’s rules because they know that they are being watched and any act and transgression, may result in severe punishment. Bentham argues that this (concept of Panopticon) would push prisoner towards ‘moral reformation’. Michel Foucault, in his book Discipline and Punish, views Panopticon as a tool to discipline subjects rather ‘reformation’. He argues that it is an exercise of power which is invisible but controls bodies and minds of prisoners. Foucault sees Panopticon in wider perspective and explains that disciplinary techniques (including surveillance and punishment) shape societies and individuals. The main purpose of Panopticon or discipline technique is to instill fear of punishment among masses. In Pakistan’s case, there are different methods and techniques to silence dissents. Let’s discuss Sabeen Mahmud’s assassination. Remember when officers from ISI walked in LUMS and ‘instructed’ administration to cancel discussion on Balochistan issue? Sabeen was the one who believed that Balochistan or any other conflict could only be resolved through dialogue. It is not as simple, at least I don’t buy, that a Saad Aziz emerges and kills her. There is a context to circumstances that led to her killing which is censorship. Her killing was a signal to everyone that whoever wants to organise discussion on Balochistan, will face the similar fate. And it worked. Except one in Karachi University, the Balochistan issue has almost disappeared from our academia, media and political circles. Another good example is the recent abduction of bloggers who were released later this year. Two of them were running and contributing to a Facebook page called Mochi. It was critical of military’s unconstitutional involvement in politics. Again, their abduction occurred in a context. After the bloggers’ abduction, secular Facebook pages like Roshni (over 100K following) and Taliban Are Zaliman either got banned or dysfunctional. Popular satirical site, Khabaristan Times, was blocked in Pakistan. In its recent report, internet rights organisation Bytes for All concludes that Pakistan has blocked 210 websites including those run by Hazara and Baloch activists. More importantly, some activists whom I know personally, deactivated their Facebook accounts, deleted their chat history and changed profile names. They feared being ‘picked up’. In its recent report, internet rights organisation Bytes for All concludes that Pakistan has blocked 210 websites including those run by Hazara and Baloch activists. More importantly, some activists deactivated their Facebook accounts, deleted their chat history and changed profile names. They feared being ‘picked up’ The abducted activists were released, but the whole episode served to instil a sense of fear among digital activists. Although people continue to raise voice against the state’s flawed policies, platforms critical of the establishment have declined in number and increasing signs of self-censorship can be seen. Now journalist Ahmad Noorani has become a target. He holds a different view on Panama judgement and highlighted issues in the verdict and more importantly, questioned the role that JIT had played throughout the investigation. He implicitly hinted that there are actors (of course, state actors) who were ‘unhappy’ with former prime minister Nawaz Sharif and as a result, they orchestrated Nawaz’s departure. More importantly, he was blunt on Twitter and highly critical of establishment. Few days ago, Noorani received some threats in the shape of ‘advice’ that it would be ‘better’ for him and his media house (Jang) if he remains silent especially on Twitter. As a result, he deactivated his Twitter account; choosing not put thousands of workers employed at Jang Group on risk. Before I conclude, let me outline main ‘rules’ of our Panopticon and failure to obey would result into punishment (disappearance, attack, assassination, or least, the label of treason). First, don’t speak about Balochistan. Second, criticise (civilian only) politician as much as you can. Third, you can criticise religious militant organisations but don’t mention their patronisers. Lastly and the most important one, non-civilian institutions are above the law. Solution is simple; break this illusionary Panopticon. I know threats are severe and harassment is rampant but those who are sitting in parliament have more responsibility as they have resources and platform to constitutionalise those who misuse their power. And the journalists who are silent on Ahmad Noorani’s attack should know that they are safe as long as they maintain ‘discipline’. Internalising fear strengthens the walls of Pganopticon. Ahmad Noorani, Sabeen, and Saleem Shahzad all refused to accept unconstitutional rules of Panopticon and this is the only way forward. The writer is an independent researcher. He tweets @jafferamirza Published in Daily Times, October 30th 2017.