Freedom of Speech

Freedom, defined exclusively, means an absence of external restraints be it the issue of speech, religion or expression. From pre-renaissance to the modern conception of state-society relations, it has occupied a pivotal role in molding socio-political infrastructure of different polities. Freedom, as argued by numerous philosophers, is an inalienable right for human beings. The fact that it occupies an intrinsically good characteristic liberates it from the consequences. Opponents of freedom reject the hypothesis that considers this characteristic plausible, arguing that it is highly unrealistic and utopian; however, they neglect the benefits that can be accrued through provision of freedom. Pakistan, although a latterly emerged state, has experienced its fair share of quid pro quo of both sides of this debate. It is imperative to note that although Pakistani constitution does cater to the subject of freedom of speech; ironically it also lays down some restraints on it “in the interest of the glory of Islam”. Throughout Pakistan’s relatively short history, political as well as religious freedom of speech has never been provided to the polity as promised by the constitution.

In the political arena, Pakistani society has never been furnished with freedom of speech; rather press, scholars and intelligentsia has been smothered under the notion that “Ignorance is bliss for masses”. From the issue of partition to the history of Indo-Pak relations, truth has never been permitted to prevail in this highly despotic society. Politicians continue to blame military’s role in policy making for this oppression; ironically, however, except for Zia’s regime, our society has savored more freedom of speech under military regimes than democratic governments. In both cases, press was never allowed to criticize governmental policies for better or worse; rather it was coerced to portray the government as being the Messiah for the people. People never got to know what went wrong in 1971 when East Pakistan was separated. Why? The reason put forward by the political elite has always been that it might have created turmoil and upheaval in society at that time. This phenomenon is not only confined to India-Pakistan relations; instead instances like this can be found in suppression of political resistance to American “War on Terror” as recently as 2005.

In addition to the controversial foreign policy issues, our society has not even enjoyed freedom of speech and expression domestically as well. Pakistan, in last couple of decades, has become a victim of sectarian and ethnic conflicts with thousands of people dying every year in such clashes. Politico-military elite, who is at helm of affairs in Pakistan, have constantly made sure that individual thoughts about such matters do not get raised. They justify this oppression by stressing upon the ideology of national interest. However, they tend to forget that although it might not be beneficial in the short term for the country, it eventually does lead to increased consensus and awareness among the masses. Religious debates about the idea of freedom have also lead to monolithic misinterpretation on the part of our political leaders. In fact one can have freedom of expression as long as one is saying what Mullahs want them to say. Religion has been highly misinterpreted in Pakistan, with minorities not even having the right to express what they feel about Islam. Blasphemy laws just indicate the sort of restraints that state has put on the society.

The whole debate about whether to allow complete freedom of speech or not largely revolves around the issue of national unity. However, a fact that is ignored by proponents of restraints on individual liberties is that it can lead to increased sense of association towards the state. Conflicts can be solved through peaceful means instead of being fought violently. Individual liberties are, thus, more crucial than the false illusion of national unity that authorities put forward in our country. America’s success is largely attributed to rising capitalism; however, bill of rights plies the basic foundation for this success which provides rights of speech and property among many others. No matter how much the so-called Islamists label them as being contrary to Islam, there is not a single issue that can be found contradictory to Quran and Sunnah in providing expressional, religious and property rights to individuals.

Our country has had a volatile political history and it’s about time we digress from the political norms of oppression. Musharraf government, although, has accomplished a good deal in providing press with freedom, there is still a lot to be done. In encouraging and advocating freedom of expression, we should, however, never forget that with freedom comes responsibility. If the freedom is offered to us, we should grab the opportunity with both hands.