Daily Times

The release of the now infamous video confession by Ehsanullah Ehsan has sparked heated debate in the country. Ehsan was, of course, the former spokesperson of the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan as well as that of the breakaway outfit, Jamaat-ul-Ahrar. That is, until he suddenly and without warning ‘surrendered’ to the Pakistan Army.

Not one to ever miss out the chance of an exclusive, Geo TV announced that it had in the bag a one-on-one interview with the man himself. The man being the very same who was responsible for the shooting of Malala, last year’s Easter Sunday attack and so very much more. To date, the JuA is unclear of whether it ever supported ISIS materially or just, you know, spiritually.

Sadly for Geo, the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority pooh-poohed the move. TV channels, it said, cannot be allowed to give airtime to ‘terrorists’. Not everyone, however, is in agreement.

Those in favour of the interview being aired believe it would serve the public interest. Meaning it would afford the people a heads-up when it comes to knowing just what they are up against; especially in terms of the sheer barbarity of these outfits. An additional hope was that foreign intelligence agency support for home-grown militants would be exposed once and for all. Naturally, it was not long before the anti-censorship argument was bandied about.

There is some merit in arguing in favour of media freedom. In so much as a blanket ban on anyone that the state reserves disdain for is clearly against freedom of expression. Yet Pakistan is currently passing through a time of immense national turbulence. The armed forces are engaged in combat operations to flush out militants that are hellbent on targeting both they and the citizenry. Thus when the social contract is breached in this most murderous way — freedom of expression must become a moot point. Indeed, the National Action Plan was unequivocal in its position: there is to be no glorification of terrorism or terrorists.

So, bravo to PEMRA for doing its bit in this regard.

But what on earth was Geo thinking? Did it really think it would serve the public interest to show Ehsan on a beautifully pattered carpet, as he nonchalantly reclines against some nicely plumped up cushions as he was seen doing in repeatedly aired promos of the notorious interview that thankfully never was?

Of course, commercial media is run along corporate lines: profit is everything. Yet it is also a given that the channel could not have had access to this militant unless and until the powers that be granted its heart’s desire. Even this is understandable to a certain extent. The confession, after all, ‘proves’ what the security establishment has claimed all along: the invisible foreign hand that seeks only to destabilise Pakistan has been there all along. Yet this ploy risks backfiring. For Ehsan is being projected as a ‘reformed’ asset; a man who has turned his back on a murderous past and urges others to do the same. The sad fact is that his privileged airtime was intended to capture international interest.

In this, we hoped to follow India’s example. Recall how they immortalised the short video clips of Ajmal Kasab from his hospital bed? There was no smiling, no lounging around. Instead there he lay looking debilitated and defeated as he shared specific information about his handlers. There was no mission to humanise him. Rather, the objective was to render Kasab the face of a hostile neighbouring state. It might, therefore, be instructive to revisit the impact on India’s internal dynamics after the seeds of orchestrated rabid anti-Pakistan propaganda were sown. It seems that, today, India has hoisted itself with its own petard. Especially given how its ‘war ready’ media has virtually made it impossible to rest the bilateral relationship.

Thus we must support PEMRA in this newfound show of responsibility. Yet the watchdog must be careful not to let this to go to its head. Meaning that it must always keep in mind the non-negotiability of due process. That is, PEMRA must not fall prey to blanket bans against whomsoever has fallen out with the government of the day. A better way in the future might be for the body itself to go through any contentious material, reviewing content before methodically gauging the potential impact on audiences.

A happy, relaxed and smiling Ehsan might have served a particular strategic objective, however narrowly defined. Yet what would have been the opportunity cost of this most farcical of pantomimes? Who would it have best served? The answer is — not the already terrorised people of Pakistan. Indeed, we would do well to remember just one thing: that which can be swallowed can also do the swallowing.

The writer is a staff member and can be emailed at marvisirmed@gmail.com, accessed on Twitter @marvisirmed