JUNE 11, 2007, was a hot day in Karachi. The air
conditioners did not work and power supply played
hide and seek all the time. It was on such a day
that I found myself standing in an auditorium
filled by more than 100 people and ready to
deliver the Hamza Alavi lecture at the invitation
of Rahat Saeed, the man who has kept the
progressive magazine Irtiqa alive for decades.
Zubeida Mustafa, herself a fearless writer, was
the stage secretary and the famous Ardeshir
Cowasjee presided. The family and friends of
Zamir Niazi had gathered there. And there I was -
a man who was not a journalist and who had not
known Zamir Niazi except through his books and
who could not even pretend to have the kind of
courage which Niazi had - daring to speak about
him.
But I had my reasons. I could see a connection
between journalism and the academia and, further,
between our own freedoms as human beings and the
freedom of the word. Aware that academic
connections might not go down well in a gathering
of brave journalists and members of civil society
who wanted to hear more about what was happening
in Pakistan as they sat dripping in perspiration,
I nevertheless took the risk to speak. Here is
the gist of what I said.
Zamir Niazi is the man who wrote a number of
books in English and Urdu on the freedom of the
press in British India and then in Pakistan
beginning from Zia’s military rule years onwards.
The trilogy (The Press in Chain, The Press Under
Siege, The Web of Censorship) is a diary of what
the press has been up against since the early
19th century in South Asia.
Niazi was meticulous in keeping records and he
was brave. Without this he could not have been
the conscience of the press for almost half of
the life of the country. But what is more is that
he was made of heroic stuff. Although under
financial constraints and suffering from ill
health, he actually returned the money that had
been given with the Pride of Performance award
when the government went against the freedom of
the press.
The media constructs our realities which is why
the powerful want to control the media. In our
part of the world it started off as part of a
huge spying network of the king and his
governors. Emperor Akbar (1556-1605) had ’waqai
nigars’ and ’waqai navis’ who noted the
happenings of the week and sent them to the
emperor through runners (’harkaras’). Then there
were secret intelligence agents, ’khufia navis’,
who found out what was happening in the bazaars
and reported this to the king. Questioning or
subversion of power was not part of the project
of these early prototypes of the media.
The media reports on history in the making thus
influencing its course. Academia comments on
concepts and processes which also shape history.
Both are detested by the wielders of power
because they challenge the status quo; they
deconstruct the ’truths’ constructed in the
favour of the power-wielders and tend to weaken
the powerful. Under despotic rule, they are
killed, during dictatorships they are jailed; and
in governments swearing by democracy they are
bribed (carrot) and persecuted (stick).
We hear loud talk about the freedom of the media
but Pemra laws swing into action when the
government feels threatened. Channels go off air
and restrictions are imposed. This is because the
reality the press constructs threatens to write
history anew. This is the phenomenon that Zamir
Niazi spent his life to record and condemn.
But how do our freedoms go with these ’western
luxuries’ (free press and free universities),
some people may ask. First, because our physical
safety is dependent upon the rule of law and the
notion of the rule of law is protected by the
press. The press not only informs people about
excesses against citizens but tells them what to
do about them. It creates public opinion. More
importantly, it creates and nourishes the notion
that there are rights and that the powerful can
be resisted. This leads to far greater personal
security than is possible in states where the
media is absent or subservient to the
power-wielders.
Second, the press exposes people to ideas of
pluralism, several value systems and various
realities. Our societal norms envisage a certain
code of conduct, a uniformity of sorts with
deviations being the prerogative of the hypocrite
or the powerful. The other contender for
restricting choices is the interpretation of
Islam. The media is a threat to both these forms
of control - tradition and political religion -
and thus the onslaught against it.
Third, the freedom of the media is linked with
what is called a national character. We are not
free to be as we like. There are many forces
acting on us which are creating our beings at all
times. Thus, contrary to the belief that courage
and integrity are personal qualities or choices,
the fact is that they are choices only under
ideal conditions.
Whether they are personal qualities in any
psychological or genetic sense is not for me to
say. However, even if they are intrinsic to some
natures more than to others, it is obvious that
external conditions stifle or nurture them. If a
person is sure that no bodily, psychological or
economic harm will come to him or her for telling
the truth, he or she will be encouraged to be
truthful. If, however, the cost of truth is
great, few people are ready to risk telling it.
Thus, truthful and honest people are not born,
they are created. When the press is no longer
free, citizens are also no longer free to be
honest or truthful, and become dishonest.
Fourth, we think we are free to pursue knowledge
but we are not. Free or almost unrestricted
pursuit of knowledge is a new phenomenon. It is
as old as the rise of the free press and, indeed,
both are inter-related.
In our country, we can test the limits of
academic freedom when there is no scholarly
debate but a lot of mud-slinging against Dr
Ayesha Siddiqa for writing a book giving details
about the military’s business. If her data is
wrong the correct data should be given but to
threaten or humiliate her is to curtail academic
freedom in a society which does not have a
research culture anyway.
Lastly, societies with a free press do a number
of things to create conditions for pursuing
pleasure. First, they prevent elites from
becoming too tyrannical. Second, they criticise
rent-seeking economic elites (mostly the same as
the political ones). Thirdly, they provide
alternative voices against the puritanical clergy
or ideologues who condemn all pleasures.
Fourthly, they provide entertainment through
drama, music, discussion, photography, etc.
Fifthly, they give one a sense of participation.
Lastly, they make one feel powerful. We may not
be powerful in the personal sense, but with the
media talking against the powerful, thus
expressing our feelings, we feel we have some
power.
We should not be complacent about these freedoms.
They have come slowly because the British left us
with some sterling ideas: freedom, rule of law,
constitution, democracy. Even military regimes
have not quite done away with this terminology
which creates some space for us. But then, we
should not forget that people have suffered and
paid for these freedoms as the journalists who
are facing the state’s power have been doing
since March 9.
Surely some of us have succumbed to pressure or
bribery but then we are only human. Who has put
the pressure? Who has bribed them? The agencies
of the state, of course, who must be condemned
clearly. We must also not forget that as long as
the press is not controlled and owned by media
persons it cannot be really free. Owners have
their money to protect and they are fewer in
number than media men, and are thus more
controllable. We must understand that those in
the media and in the universities stand for the
same ideals of freedom which are currently under
great stress. This is the time to respect the
legacy of Zamir Niazi and to pass it on to the
younger generation.