The cartoon above shows two twice-elected prime ministers who have been convicted for corruption. One is in prison, the other is in exile. Both face stiff penalties. The picture reflects on one particularly dismal dimension of our political condition today. But does it “tarnish the image of Pakistan”? Should there be laws to punish those who, like our cartoonist, reflect the reality of Pakistan in images such as the one above?
These questions have acquired relevance since General Pervez Musharraf ordered the interior minister to investigate the “anti-Pakistan utterances of certain politicians” and draft a law to punish them for “tarnishing the image of Pakistan”. But before Mr Moinuddin Haider churns out such a law, he might pause to consider its potential scope for mischief. He might also review the current image of Pakistan.
Pakistan is not a pristine Islamic utopia whose image has been tarnished by the brush of heretical or unpatriotic opinion. In fact, Pakistan’s image is that of a backward, immoderate, indebted, poor, illiterate and undemocratic country ruled by rapacious civil and military elites which have not respected the rule of law or constitution even as they have desperately vied with each other to rule and rob the exchequer. The image is of a country where religious fanatics run amuck and kill one another; where religious schools feverishly manufacture jehadis to stir up trouble; where blood-curdling tribal vendettas and honour killings jostle for “Islamic” legitimacy along with edicts banning “interest” and fatwas outlawing video films and pop music; where non-Muslim minorities are accorded second-rate citizenship. Pakistan’s image is that of a country where few people pay any taxes and fewer still pay back their bank loans; where women are economically exploited and socially oppressed. And so on.
Dispassionate Pakistanis will agree that this unflattering composite image of their country is not far removed from reality. Should we then shoot the messenger for conveying the truth? Should we string up all those who demand a change in this reality? Indeed, does it matter whether, in this age of the internet and information revolution, the demand for change is made or the reality is reflected in a conference or seminar in Lahore or London or Delhi or Washington?
Let us face facts. The dream bequeathed by independence has since become a sour reality for many Pakistanis. If blame has to be apportioned and punitive measures applied for the tarnished reality of Pakistan, the target should be those who have robbed the country, those who have mocked the constitution and derailed democracy, those who have fanned the fires of ethnicity, obscurantism and sectarianism at home or waged war abroad, rather than those who agonise over the plight of their beloved country. The historic irony is that those who have blackened the name of Pakistan have often been the ones to advocate and promulgate laws to punish those who have dared to reveal the faces behind the masks.
One last question remains. Some people argue that while it is desirable to speak the truth and freely analyse our shortcomings at home, we should not wash our “dirty linen” in “public”. By this, they mean that we should not elaborate our societal faults or systemic failures before foreign audiences or in foreign lands.
This is a perfectly understandable, well-meaning view. It is based on certain inbred notions of nationalism or national pride generally prevalent in newly born countries. But the fact is that such views also reflect a country’s failure to channel diverse socio-political currents into the river of modern, democratic, nationhood and are therefore manifestations of a subconscious inferiority complex. That is why such notions have lost value in the West where the modern nation-state was born over 200 years ago and where efforts are now being made to transcend its narrow “sovereign” confines. Among the strengths of Western nation-states is the ability to publish and promote self-critical views in an institutionalised manner rather than frame laws to outlaw “subversive” ideas and thoughts.
Such views also smack of misplaced concreteness in today’s context. If it is alright to write a book or an article critical of certain “national” traits and shortcomings, and have it published and read abroad, why should the same ideas presented at a conference or seminar abroad provoke angry denunciations at home?
General Pervez Musharraf’s concerns about improving Pakistan’s image are justified. But he should know that in this day and age one cannot manufacture a country’s image at variance with its reality. So he must focus his efforts on changing the offending reality. He should also realise that there is no shortage of laws to deal with secessionists, criminals, flag-burners, spies and agents-provocateur. Therefore he must not fashion any new laws which lend themselves to human-rights abuse, curtail the freedom of the press or restrict fundamental rights such as freedom of speech and expression. If he does, he will be guilty of tarnishing Pakistan’s already frayed image.