Daily Times

For several days now, the Ministry of Interior has been running an advertisement on electronic media about our fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression enshrined in Article 19 of the constitution.

Unsurprisingly, the ad reminds the public that their right to free speech is not unconditional and is subject to [reasonable] restrictions imposed by law. These restrictions, according to Article 19, can be in the interest of the glory of Islam; defence of Pakistan; friendly relations with foreign states; public order; decency or morality; and contempt of court or incitement to offence.

Despite this broad range of interests, somehow the question of free speech appears in our public discourse mostly regarding the country’s blasphemy laws (covered in ChapterXV of the Pakistan Penal Code). For instance, these latest ads campaign by the interior ministry come alongside the arrest of a person and addition of names of several others on the Exit Control List (ECL) in connection with a court petition seeking removal of blasphemous content from social media. Until now, all we know about these individuals based on the ministry’s statement is that they were chatting on an online forum deemed blasphemous by the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA).

Earlier, there was the case of five bloggers, one of whom still remains missing since the first week of January as others have returned to their families. These bloggers had been targets of a well-orchestrated hate campaign, accusing them of blasphemy.

Considering false accusations of blasphemy in this country have led to two high profile assassinations and countless suffering for families like AasiaBibi’s, it’s a pity that the government’s ongoing ads campaign does not feature any word of caution on either hateful speech or false accusations of blasphemy. Instead, it just issues a blanket warning that violation of laws restricting speech can carry harsh penalties including death.

An important fact about these laws, that the campaign overlooks, is that they are neither divinely ordained nor eternal. Instead, the existing laws that impose restrictions on speech are based on particular readings or interpretations of various interests (like glory of Islam) mentioned in Article 19. These laws were outcomes of political processes that took place in specific historical contexts.

For instance, the laws that define and criminalise certain speech acts as blasphemous predate the establishment of Pakistani state and were in fact enacted by British colonial administrators, primarily to serve their own vested interests. This is to say that these laws did not emerge out of a dialogue among individuals and communities identifying with different religious traditions or a generalised feeling of empathy with individuals and communities whose feelings stood to be hurt by blasphemous speech. Instead, the blasphemy laws were included in the Indian Penal Code to prevent social unrest that could frustrate the continuation of colonial state’s extractive policies in the region.

Following the partition, the scope of law expanded in Pakistan to cover for acts of speech directed at specific personalities from Islamic history. Again, this expansion did not come about following any dialogue among or within various religious communities (as equals) now constituting the Pakistani nation. Enough academic works are now available to show that, when it happened in 1980s, the expansion in the scope of blasphemy laws was a concession given to increasingly well-organised actors on the extreme right of the political spectrum by a military dictator desperately in need of bases of social support. Thus, the expanded set of laws reflects these political actors’ reading or interpretation of blasphemous speech and its penalties. As has been shown by Arafat Mazhar’sground-breaking research, historical accuracy (of references to Islamic jurisprudential tradition) was not a characteristic of this peculiar reading.

This story of the blasphemy laws serves as a reminder that while breaking the law is a criminal act, debating it is not. In fact, it will be entirely lawful to debate appropriate penalties for those guilty of blasphemous speech. The parameters of such speech can also be debated without any violation of the law.

Similar discussions are possible for other laws restricting speech. To be lawful, these discussions don’t have to be limited only to determining appropriate penalties for violations and can very well feature questioning of the underlying definitions of those interests (from Article 19) in whose name these laws restrict speech. Finally, nothing in Article 19 or laws restricting speech yet prevents us from imagining a future where these interests are understood in a different way.

Imagine a future where glory of Islam is tied to promotion of amity, equity, and understanding, among those associating with it and those with other religious traditions, as well as among those associating with various interpretations of Islamic tradition. Imagine a time when provision of nutritious food, potable water, clean air, and other basic needs to Pakistani citizens is the benchmark for our national security and integrity; when our morality and decency is reflected not in disciplining women’s bodies and upholding patriarchal norms of honour and shame but in establishing a society where gender identity has no bearing on citizens’ physical and economic well-being (guaranteed by the state); and, finally, when these ideas of national security and integrity and public morality and decency determine our relations with other nations.

In 2017, such a future seems utopian. Yet, the history of modern era teaches us that what may be far from real today can one day become a foregone conclusion. This journey from today’s utopia to tomorrow’s reality hinges on our ability as political subjects to undertake and sustain collective action in pursuit of these ideas and against those that define our reality today. Herein lies the biggest significance of Article 19 of our constitution: in recognising speech and expression as a right, it has already paved the way for this journey by allowing that we don’t just keep imagining about a better future but can also start talking about it, without fear of legally sanctioned restrictions.

The writer is a journalist and researcher based in Lahore and can be reached at umair.rasheed@lums.edu.pk