Pakistan: Censorship in public discourse: ‘Dogma has bred denial, killed dissent’

Distorted history books and religious dogma have left Pakistani society intolerant of debate and dissent and mired in denial, said speakers at a discussion on ‘Censorship in public discourse’ at the second session of the Khudi Festival of Ideas on Sunday. Journalist and discussion moderator Mubasher Bukhari said the Pakistani press faced great pressure to censor facts from stories that challenged the established narrative. “In all my years as a journalist, I have been under pressure to censor reports, whether from political or religious parties or the establishment,” he said. Journalists often practised self-censorship, he said. This particularly applied to blasphemy cases, which often went unreported. “With such practices in place there is no space left for counter narratives,” he said. And self-censorship was not just restricted to the press, he said. “Forget media reports, even governments exercise self-censorship by not releasing reports on sensitive issues in their entirety,” he said. Lawyer Yasser Latif Hamdani advocated a separation of the state and religion. “If we want to see Pakistan as a progressive state, we have to separate state from religion,” he said. Islam’s privileged status in the Constitution meant that it was always at the centre of public discourse. Even viewed in the legal paradigm, he said, one had little room to exercise religious and individual freedoms. In a society bent on establishing a single religious practice, there was no tolerance for alternative discourse, he said. Distorted history textbooks further strengthened the resolve not to tolerate differing views, he added. History books were not written to establish facts and context, he said, but to establish people’s roles as either ‘good’ or ‘bad’. “Why must we have a history that identifies characters as heroes or villains?” Research analyst Amir Mughal said Pakistani society was content to avoid issues by pretending they don’t exist. “Every topic deemed sensitive or controversial is brushed under the carpet by our government,” he said. Society’s natural response had been programmed such that anything varying from the established norms and narratives was either banned or censored. He questioned the ban on YouTube. But the media was not blameless, he said. “The media is quick to criticise civilian governments, but what about the security establishment?” he asked. The media also played a part in the assassination of Salmaan Taseer. “Nowadays, the easiest thing for anyone to do is to label liberals or secular people as traitors,” he said.