What makes Maalik a controversial movie — its ‘hate’ content or the lack of freedom of expression in the country? From day one, the movie suffered from a mixed opinion and once the ban was slapped on it a media debate ensued reflecting a divided approach on its contents and the government policy. The mindboggling question this debate generated was: if it spread hate, what was the nature of that hate, and how could it be defended under the banner of ‘freedom of expression’? One of the clauses of the National Action Plan (NAP) announced by government in January 2015 deals with hate-related crimes, and a large number of people have been arrested so far for violating this clause. As reported in the press, more than 360 cases were registered against clerics in Karachi’s Central and West district alone during last two years for violating the Sindh Sound System code and inciting one sect against the other. The judicial verdicts announced against some of the hate crimes in the country carried punishments ranging between 10 to 13 years. Two Shia Muslims, Saqlain Haider and Rizwan Haider, were awarded 13-year imprisonment in Lahore; one of them posted hateful material on Facebook and the other just clicked ‘like’ option for hateful material on Facebook. The third case landed a man 10-year imprisonment for selling hate-material in Jhelum. Another hate-related incident came to surface when a controversial excerpt from a chapter of sociology textbook was circulated on social media. It contained derogatory remarks about Baloch people, calling them “uncivilised people” who “lived in the desert and loot[ed] caravans.” The Punjab government ordered an inquiry, and the publisher of the book tendered a public apology on this mistake. The book is one of the most highly recommended textbooks for the highly competitive Central Superior Services (CSS) examinations that qualify a person to acquire a bureaucratic position in the echelons of civil administration. All these incidents of hate crimes occurred prior to the premier of the action-packed movie Maalik. A journalist, Moayyed Jafri, reported the premier of the movie with a lead saying, “Maalik with overwhelming message of patriotism premiered.” Despite showering many accolades on the patriotic spirit of Aashir Azeem, the writer, director, and producer of the movie, he couldn’t refrain from admitting that there were some controversial contents in the movie. The identification of rampant corruption and injustice in every cog of civilian government system and the decision of a patriotic army man to take action against this evil by establishing a clandestine security agency along with his ex-servicemen looks very patriotic and heroic. What goes wrong or controversial, in his opinion, is the regional focus on Sindh rather than a general scenario as an absolute cesspool of corruption, injustice and exploitation. “And as if that wasn’t enough,” he further comments, “the extortionist, murderer and rapist chief minister in the movie is rather blatantly associated with a real world political party with Benazir Bhutto’s picture seen clearly hung in his home.” Being one of the lucky (or unlucky) persons having watched this movie before it went off the screen, I can vouch for these observations, and even make further addition to the list of ‘hate crimes’ this movie has committed. While all villains of the movie belong to a particular ethnic community, the heroes (lead character and the private security guard) hail from another ethnic community of the country. The violation of the clauses of the NAP doesn’t end here. A terrorist, who happens to be a brother of the leading female character, makes an unsuccessful attempt on the life of the corrupt chief minister to avenge the molestation of his sister — a heroic deed of a terrorist that can be an exceptional case. In a country where hundreds of children and women have been victims of terrorist attacks, showing one of them as a hero even as an exceptional case doesn’t only make a mockery of victims of terrorist attacks but violates a clause of the NAP that restricts media to give any space to terrorists. Since the ISPR is one of the sponsors of the movie, the violation of the clauses of the NAP by the moviemaker raises a very basic question: Are civil and military authorities not on the same page in following the NAP?” This may not be true because the movie was cleared by the censor board that is run and controlled by a civil authority. Could it be a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the clauses of the NAP? As the clauses under reference specifically deal with print and electronic media and make no mention of cinema, chances are that no attention might have been paid to these clauses while the movie was reviewed for clearance by the Censor Board of Pakistan. To correlate banning of Maalik with the violation of the basic human right for freedom of expression seems to be an argument that is not only out of place and irrelevant but in need of a revisit of the concept of this right. Can the defendants of this right allow use of this freedom for all those hate-speeches and writings that faced legal actions under the relevant clauses of NAP for creating sectarian hatred and militant mindsets in the country? Can they allow sociology textbook for CSS students to continue carrying negative comments about the Baloch people for the sake of freedom of expression? If the answer is a big NO, how on earth can it be otherwise when a similar crime is committed under a different medium of communication? No doubt, a common consensus on freedom of expression defines people as the final judge to accept or reject any expression. But as is always true, no freedom is without a check valve attached to it. Crossing certain limits creates more harm than benefits expected from such a liberty. Spread of biased patriotism under the garb of freedom of expression has a long and ugly history in our country. Bengalis were once labelled as ‘unpatriotic’, and those who raised the slogan ‘Thank God, Pakistan has been saved!’ while the military was on the move in the then East Pakistan to crush the largest political party of the country are now facing a similar blame being pasted on them. In short, it’s not the movie but the policy that is at stake. All other reasons and arguments are peripheral issues. Ignoring or being excessive in applying a rule in a selective manner will be nothing but an attempt to sabotage the basic spirit of the NAP. Are we willing to sacrifice or uphold a policy that was adopted by all leaders of the country? The writer is Senior Research Fellow at the Centre for Research & Security Studies, Islamabad|